Doesn't the definition of "composer (expression)" point to how composers of music for films may have different relationships to different expressions of a motion picture?
RDA I.3.1 - composer (expression) "A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression by adding music to a work that originally lacked it, by composing new music to substitute for the original music, or by composing new music to supplement the existing music." With each version of a motion picture, with different director's cuts (each a different expression of the motion picture), the musical contribution may vary, perhaps with new music entirely, even though it's fundamentally the same work. Isn't this the same distinction between illustrator (expression-level) and artist (work-level)? The added illustrations to a book may in some sense be a separate work, which an "artist" is responsible for, but convention would have this as an expression-level relationship-- a contribution to a specific realization of a work. The same work may later have a different set of illustrations contributed by a different illustrator. Also, the expression-level term "performer" may make sense as an expression term if one considers all the different cuts of a film. In many cases, one actor may be indispensable to all cuts, but over time, with scenes added or cut, or reshot, some performers may make different contributions to each of the expressions. A good example is the original Star Wars trilogy, which have been re-released many times, often with new actors and voiceovers redoing some scenes. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: October 9, 2012 12:45 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 > > On 10/9/2012 12:37 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: > > > > I would not focus too much on whether the relationship applies to all > > expressions of the work. If the relationship involves the realization > > rather than the creation of the work, then it is an expression-level > > relationship. > > > The problem with this is that if the person DOES contribute to every single > expression, if their contribution is actually fundamental to the work, but > our rules/structures only allow it to be _recorded_ at the expression level > -- then it needs to be redundantly recorded multiple times for every > expression, and re-entered every time there's a new expression with a new > expression record, and there's opportunity for them all to be out of sync. > > This is an odd modelling choice for RDA to make, I can't think of what > motivated it.
