[RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)
On 08/10/2012 19:27, Adam L. Schiff wrote: snip Because the rule of three from AACR2 is gone, it doesn't matter how many creators there are for a work. In RDA the authorized access point for a work is the combination of the first named or prominently named creator and the preferred title for the work. Hence: AACR2 245 00 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A ... [et al.]. 700 1_ $a Author A. RDA 100 1_ $a Author A. 245 10 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A, B, C, and D. /snip Yes, and the problem with this (other than changing the rule of three to the rule of one and maintaining that it increases access--but that is another point) is that the 1xx field is not repeatable. If the four authors have equal responsibility, they should all be in the 100 field, while those with other responsibilities would go into 7xx, thereby making it similar to Dublin Core's creator and contributor. The reason there is only a single 1xx field is historical: something that was very useful before has no use today but it sticks around. Much like an appendix or the coccyx. If we were making records completely from scratch today, single main entries would not even be thought of. Also, in the past, titles were considered quite differently from how catalogers consider them today. I remember how I was struck by the cavalier fashion they were handled in earlier catalogs, when I first started researching them. Many times, they weren't traced at all, even with anonymous works. Several times, I saw them just thrown in together into a section called Anonymous, pseudonymous, etc. works which made it pretty much useless. Journals were often included in these sections because the idea of corporate authorship took awhile. In these cases, I guess people just had to ask the librarian. Look at the incredible guidelines for title entries (references) in Cutter's Rules to try to make titles of books useful for the public (see p. 56+ in his rules https://archive.org/stream/rulesforadictio02cuttgoog#page/n62/mode/1up) and we can get another understanding what Cutter really meant when he wrote: To enable a person to find a book of which either ... the title is known. It was more complicated than it may appear since people rarely know the exact title of the book they want. In sum, his rules show that first-word entry is minimized in favor of catch-word or other titles. Much of this part of his rules disappeared later, probably because of their complexity. As an example, he says to make a first-word entry for works of prose fiction (Rule 135) giving the intriguing reason that novels are known more by their titles than by their authors' names. Even here he has an exception for the name of the hero or heroine in the title, citing the entry David Copperfield, Life and adventures of so that people didn't have to look for the book under L. Just wanted to share that bit. Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)
James Weinheimer wrote: Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... RDA is not concerned with encoding but rule 6.27.1.3 does give the alternative to Include in the authorized access point representing the work the authorized access points for all creators named in resources embodying the work or in reference sources (in the order in which they are named in those sources). Also, it should be noted that chapter 19 does not set any limits on the number of creators recorded. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca/ De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de James Weinheimer Envoyé : 9 octobre 2012 03:43 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : [RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry) On 08/10/2012 19:27, Adam L. Schiff wrote: snip Because the rule of three from AACR2 is gone, it doesn't matter how many creators there are for a work. In RDA the authorized access point for a work is the combination of the first named or prominently named creator and the preferred title for the work. Hence: AACR2 245 00 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A ... [et al.]. 700 1_ $a Author A. RDA 100 1_ $a Author A. 245 10 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A, B, C, and D. /snip Yes, and the problem with this (other than changing the rule of three to the rule of one and maintaining that it increases access--but that is another point) is that the 1xx field is not repeatable. If the four authors have equal responsibility, they should all be in the 100 field, while those with other responsibilities would go into 7xx, thereby making it similar to Dublin Core's creator and contributor. The reason there is only a single 1xx field is historical: something that was very useful before has no use today but it sticks around. Much like an appendix or the coccyx. If we were making records completely from scratch today, single main entries would not even be thought of. Also, in the past, titles were considered quite differently from how catalogers consider them today. I remember how I was struck by the cavalier fashion they were handled in earlier catalogs, when I first started researching them. Many times, they weren't traced at all, even with anonymous works. Several times, I saw them just thrown in together into a section called Anonymous, pseudonymous, etc. works which made it pretty much useless. Journals were often included in these sections because the idea of corporate authorship took awhile. In these cases, I guess people just had to ask the librarian. Look at the incredible guidelines for title entries (references) in Cutter's Rules to try to make titles of books useful for the public (see p. 56+ in his rules https://archive.org/stream/rulesforadictio02cuttgoog#page/n62/mode/1up) and we can get another understanding what Cutter really meant when he wrote: To enable a person to find a book of which either ... the title is known. It was more complicated than it may appear since people rarely know the exact title of the book they want. In sum, his rules show that first-word entry is minimized in favor of catch-word or other titles. Much of this part of his rules disappeared later, probably because of their complexity. As an example, he says to make a first-word entry for works of prose fiction (Rule 135) giving the intriguing reason that novels are known more by their titles than by their authors' names. Even here he has an exception for the name of the hero or heroine in the title, citing the entry David Copperfield, Life and adventures of so that people didn't have to look for the book under L. Just wanted to share that bit. Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)
On 09/10/2012 16:02, Paradis Daniel wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... RDA is not concerned with encoding but rule 6.27.1.3 does give the alternative to Include in the authorized access point representing the work the authorized access points for all creators named in resources embodying the work or in reference sources (in the order in which they are named in those sources). Also, it should be noted that chapter 19 does not set any limits on the number of creators recorded. /snip Yes, I understand that. To believe that real human beings--who formerly had to trace three authors and are now allowed to trace only one, or in other words, will actually choose to do *more* work when they can get by with *less* work--is a complete misreading of human behavior. *Of course* people will do only what they have to do and will do no more. How can anyone believe any differently? I discussed this in a paper I gave in Buenos Aires: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/02/is-rda-only-way-alternative-option.html -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship Designators reads as follows: film producer film director actor composer (expression) Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, director, actor, and composer for Million dollar baby Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be considered composer of the work, not the expression? Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than 'contributor') to a musical work. But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the composer's contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a particular expression of it. On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a relationship designator for composer of a musical work. Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship Designators reads as follows: film producer film director actor composer (expression) *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be considered composer of the work, not the expression? Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I guess my follow-up question would be: are users really going to get that, in a way that would be useful to them? Considering it flummoxed a room full of catalogers. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -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: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:27 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than 'contributor') to a musical work. But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the composer's contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a particular expression of it. On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a relationship designator for composer of a musical work. Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- -- *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship Designators reads as follows: film producer film director actor composer (expression) *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be considered composer of the work, not the expression? Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
According to RDA, relationships to the work are limited to Creator (19.2) and Other person, family, or corporate body associated with the work (19.3). Relationships to the expression are all characterized as Contributor (20.2). Put the other way around, according to the RDA definitions, all creators create a work and all contributors contribute to an expression. 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. - Original Message - | From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu | To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and | Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Cc: JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:26:43 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than | 'contributor') to a musical work. | But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather | than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the | composer's | contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a | particular expression of it. | On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: | Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a | relationship designator for composer of a musical work. | | Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one | aspect | of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is | therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer | can | only be the creator of a _musical_ work. | | John Attig | Authority Control Librarian | Penn State University | jx...@psu.edu | | | | *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu | *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM | *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship | Designators reads as follows: | | film producer | | film director | | actor | | composer (expression) | | *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the | authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, | director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** | | Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by | expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be | considered composer of the work, not the expression? | | | Thanks, | | Ben | | Benjamin Abrahamse | | Cataloging Coordinator | | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | | MIT Libraries | | 617-253-7137 | |
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I'm not sure that this is something that we should expect users to get. I'm trying to find a way that we can encode the (Expression) qualifier somehow, but not display it. But, recording the relationships at the proper level and within the FRBR structural framework does allow us to design user displays that can be meaningful to users. This will be a challenge, but we are beginning to have access to a lot of tools that we can use to accomplish such results. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:35:58 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | I guess my follow-up question would be: are users really going to get | that, in a way that would be useful to them? | Considering it flummoxed a room full of catalogers. | Benjamin Abrahamse | Cataloging Coordinator | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | MIT Libraries | 617-253-7137 | -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: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:27 PM | To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than | 'contributor') to a musical work. | But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather | than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the | composer's contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a | whole, not just a particular expression of it. | On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: | Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a | relationship designator for composer of a musical work. | | Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one | aspect | of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is | therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer | can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. | | John Attig | Authority Control Librarian | Penn State University | jx...@psu.edu | | -- | -- | | *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu | *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM | *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship | Designators reads as follows: | | film producer | | film director | | actor | | composer (expression) | | *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the | authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, | director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** | | Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by | expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be | considered composer of the work, not the expression? | | | Thanks, | | Ben | | Benjamin Abrahamse | | Cataloging Coordinator | | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | | MIT Libraries | | 617-253-7137 | |
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.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Thanks for the answer. We'll keep trying to figure this out. :) b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:36 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I guess my follow-up question would be: are users really going to get that, in a way that would be useful to them? Considering it flummoxed a room full of catalogers. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -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: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:27 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than 'contributor') to a musical work. But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the composer's contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a particular expression of it. On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a relationship designator for composer of a musical work. Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- -- *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship Designators reads as follows: film producer film director actor composer (expression) *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be considered composer of the work, not the expression? Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track of a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces of music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the composer of those pieces of music would be considered any differently than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I am beginning to wonder if RDA is more of a code for catalogers than for users. Looking at the example, what is the movie an expression of? Was there a previous work? Can a movie be a work in or itself? There are Oscars for original script. And what about previous composers for movies, Schoenberg, for instance? On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Thanks for the answer. We'll keep trying to figure this out. :) b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:36 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I guess my follow-up question would be: are users really going to get that, in a way that would be useful to them? Considering it flummoxed a room full of catalogers. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -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: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:27 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than 'contributor') to a musical work. But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather than creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the composer's contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a particular expression of it. On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: Composer is qualified by expression because there is also a relationship designator for composer of a musical work. Composer (Expression) is used because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- -- *From: *Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, Recording Relationship Designators reads as follows: film producer film director actor composer (expression) *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by expression? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be considered composer of the work, not the expression? Thanks, Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood composed Million Dollar Baby. It would make sense to say that he composed the music for the film. If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film work. However, the example that started this conversation was identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an integral work -- which is something quite different. I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be beginning to wish I hadn't. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... | I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something | that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track of | a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces | of | music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the | composer of those pieces of music would be considered any differently | than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? | Thank you. | Jerri Swinehart | MLIS | Metadata Technician | Oakland University | Kresge Library | Technical Services | Rochester, MI 48309-4484 | swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:08 PM, JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu wrote: To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood composed Million Dollar Baby. Actually in the authority work for music ... one must identify who it was that wrote the musical notes (not words) for the musical work. So if Clint Eastwood actually wrote the musical notes then he would be credited with the musical work. Therefore, it would be correct if putting a 700 name/title added entry on to the DVD of Million Dollar Baby to do (something like): Eastwood, Clint. $t Million dollar baby. $p Musical Work OR if he wrote all the musical notes for all the music in the movie ... Eastwood, Clint. $t Million Dollar Baby ... of course this is assuming the music has the same title as the movie. I think I better go back to lurking! Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
John, I apologize for continuing to harp on this but I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding it fully. In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? Please note I'm not trying to argue this with you, as clearly you're correct. Just trying to understand how it's supposed to work. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of JOHN C ATTIG Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:09 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood composed Million Dollar Baby. It would make sense to say that he composed the music for the film. If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film work. However, the example that started this conversation was identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an integral work -- which is something quite different. I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be beginning to wish I hadn't. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edumailto:jx...@psu.edu From: Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track of a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces of music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the composer of those pieces of music would be considered any differently than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Gene Fieg wrote: I am beginning to wonder if RDA is more of a code for catalogers than for users. The relationship designators are not all necessarily designed to be displayed as is to catalog users. They are designed to identify the exact relationships between elements in the basic metadata. Many of these will be simplified in OPAC displays (maybe not even displayed at all, depending on the nature of the application or the particular function being used in the application). The (work), (expression), etc. are necessary for specifying the exact relationships in the metadata, but will generally not be of any use to the OPAC user. A well-designed user interface will not be displaying those terms. In our current MARC environment, we are using the relationship designators as codes. So for example $i Composer (Expression) is the code for the relationship defined in RDA as Composer (Expression) and might be displayed in an OPAC as Composer:. Unfortunately, most (all?) systems using MARC can only treat these codes as displayable text strings, especially since the subfields $i that are being used for these RDA relationship designators are defined to hold free text (as opposed to codes intended to be resolved as other displayable text strings). In a future environment, we might have the relationship coded as something like RdaComposerExpression, and again display it in the OPAC as Composer:. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Title entries
James said:
Yes, and the problem with this (other than changing the rule of three to
the rule of one and maintaining that it increases access--but that is
another point) is that the 1xx field is not repeatable. If the four
authors have equal responsibility, they should all be in the 100 field ...
Apart from Cuttering, equal responsibility would create difficulties
for single entry bibliographies, footnotes, and citations, as well as
subject and added entries.
Scores of records under Complete works as opposed to Shakespeare
would help no one.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
My understanding is that a work is an idea or outline in a creator's head; and an expression is a result realized from a work, like text, sound, or movement. A work would make sense if there are more than one expression. For a movie, the work should refer to the whole thing. I think that differences in the cast and languages would result in another expression of the same work. But an adoption of like a fiction/story to a movie would result in another work, according to FRBR. Also, for a movie, a part of it, like music, can be an individual work or an expression. This is a whole-part relationship. It is very hard to say that a composer for a movie music can be a creator of the movie (at the work-level). Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: John, I apologize for continuing to harp on this but I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding it fully. ** ** In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving-image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. ** ** Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. ** ** So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? ** ** Please note I'm not trying to argue this with you, as clearly you're correct. Just trying to understand how it's supposed to work. ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *JOHN C ATTIG *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:09 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 ** ** To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood composed Million Dollar Baby. It would make sense to say that he composed *the music for* the film. If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film work. However, the example that started this conversation was identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an integral work -- which is something quite different. I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be beginning to wish I hadn't. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- *From: *Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM *Subject: *Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track of a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces of music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the composer of those pieces of music would be considered any differently than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu ** ** -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
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.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
We have reached the point where I need to stop pretending to have the answers. This is indeed the critical issue, and there are differences of opinion in the moving-image community about this. RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of author and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. The producer/production company and the director are (I think) stronger candidates for creators of the work; actually, RDA considers them to be other persons associated with the work, rather than creators, but definitely considers them as related to the work, rather than the expression. I don't pretend that these are definitive answers. You will certainly find people who disagree with me. However, I think that you ask the right question: Which aspects are associated with the work and which with the expression? I should note that the Online Audio-visual Catalogers group has done a lot of work on this question. Various documents (under Moving-image works ... can be found at http://olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/359. I don't agree with all their conclusions, but they have clearly done a lot of thinking about these issues. And they clearly represent the community that needs to be doing this thinking. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:32:19 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | John, | I apologize for continuing to harp on this but I'm still having a bit | of trouble understanding it fully. | In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood | gets composer (expression), | because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the | moving-image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign | relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves | the realization rather than the creation of the work. | Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, | the directing, production… all is about realizing something. | Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized | has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script | intended. | So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly | part of the work and not simply one aspect? | Please note I'm not trying to argue this with you, as clearly you're | correct. Just trying to understand how it's supposed to work. | Benjamin Abrahamse | Cataloging Coordinator | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | MIT Libraries | 617-253-7137 | From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and | Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of JOHN C | ATTIG | Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:09 PM | To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter | Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood | composed Million Dollar Baby. | It would make sense to say that he composed the music for the film. | If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is | fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film | work. However, the example that started this conversation was | identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an | integral work -- which is something quite different. | I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be | beginning to wish I hadn't. | John Attig | Authority Control Librarian | Penn State University | jx...@psu.edu | - Original Message - | | From: Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.edu | | | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | | | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM | | | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | | I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... | | | I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something | | | that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track | | of | | | a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces | | of | | | music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the | | | composer of those pieces of music would be considered any | | differently | | | than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? | | | Thank you. | | | Jerri Swinehart | | | MLIS | | | Metadata Technician | | | Oakland University | | | Kresge Library | | | Technical Services | | | Rochester, MI 48309-4484 | | | swine...@oakland.edu |
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of photography, producer and production company are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of photography, producer and production company are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for giving was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies or not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, but then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also Sprach Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't composed for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become expressions of the movie On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of photography, producer and production company are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Is a collection of music is a collective work? If it is, treat it as a collective work. Making the whole-part relationship explicit in a bibliographic record depends on users' benefits. See if it helps users to search and find resources. Regarding recording relationships, I remember that Thomas Brennodorfer has mentioned four conventions in a previous email. My thought. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for giving was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies or not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, but then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also Sprach Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't composed for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become expressions of the movie On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of photography, producer and production company are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
No, they are either (a) contributions to the realization of the movie, typically recorded in the description of the movie as notes and/or authorized access points for the person responsible; or (b) works described in their own right (typically in authority records) and recorded in the description of the compilation (or the analytic description) as related works. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:42:36 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for giving | was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies or | not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, but | then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also Sprach | Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't composed | for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become | expressions of the movie | On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse | babra...@mit.edu wrote: | | Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, | | | --Ben | | | Benjamin Abrahamse | | | Cataloging Coordinator | | | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | | | MIT Libraries | | | 617-253-7137 | | | -Original Message- | | | From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and | | Access [mailto: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca ] On Behalf Of Kevin M | | Randall | | | Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM | | | To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca | | | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | | Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: | | | In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated | | Eastwood | | | gets composer (expression), | | | | | | because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of | | the | | | moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign | | | relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves | | the | | | realization rather than the creation of the work. | | | | | | Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The | | script, | | | the directing, production… all is about realizing something. | | | Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is | | realized | | | has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script | | intended. | | | | | | So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered | | properly | | | part of the work and not simply one aspect? | | | I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the | | distribution of responsibility categories between work and | | expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of | | photography, producer and production company are associated | | with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the | | *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM | | STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman | | (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) | | and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the | | work | | than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola | | (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, | | all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in | | relationship to the film. | | | Kevin M. Randall | | | Principal Serials Cataloger | | | Northwestern University Library | | | k...@northwestern.edu | | | (847) 491-2939 | | | Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! | | -- | Gene Fieg | Cataloger/Serials Librarian | Claremont School of Theology | gf...@cst.edu | Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not | represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the | information or content contained in this forwarded email. The | forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not | represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont | Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for | information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
John I am sorry. Do you mean a collection of music or just a movie music? Also do you mean recording the relationships in both sides? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM, JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu wrote: No, they are either (a) contributions to the realization of the movie, typically recorded in the description of the movie as notes and/or authorized access points for the person responsible; or (b) works described in their own right (typically in authority records) and recorded in the description of the compilation (or the analytic description) as related works. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- *From: *Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:42:36 PM *Subject: *Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for giving was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies or not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, but then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also Sprach Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't composed for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become expressions of the movie On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood gets composer (expression), because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship involves the realization rather than the creation of the work. Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, the directing, production… all is about realizing something. Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is realized has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script intended. So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly part of the work and not simply one aspect? I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the distribution of responsibility categories between work and expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of photography, producer and production company are associated with *work* while all other aspects are associated with the *expression*. It seems rather arbitrary. Take, for example, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992): are the contributions of Gary Oldman (actor), Eiko Ishioka (costume designer), Wojciech Kilar (composer) and Thomas Sanders (production designer) any less a part of the work than those of James V. Hart (screenwriter), Francis Ford Coppola (director), Michael Ballhaus (director of photography)? In my mind, all of these people belong on the same FRBR Group 1 level in relationship to the film. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
John wrote: “RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of author and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. “ I have been interpreting this to mean that the screenwriter would be given as Creator/Author/Screenwriter only when describing the screenplay, script, or scene itself, applying 19.2.1.3. When describing a motion picture of which the screenplay is only one part, I assumed that the screenwriter would have to fit into the category of contributor, along with the others. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that there is no relationship designator for screenwriter as contributor. Perhaps one could be added, along the same lines as the composer example that Thomas pointed out: I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators composer A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a musical work. Use also for persons, etc., adapting another musical work to form a distinct alteration (e.g., free transcription), paraphrasing a work or creating a work in the general style of another composer, or creating a work that is based on the music of another composer (e.g., variations on a theme). I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors 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. I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators screenwriter An author of a screenplay, script, or scene. Add something like: I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors screenwriter (expression) An author of a screenplay, script, or scene used in the production of a motion picture Deborah - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I was dealing only with the case presented, which was a collection of music from movies -- and the individual selections in such a collection. The discussion could be generalized in several directions, but I don't think I was doing that. The question as to whether related work relationships should be reciprocal is an interesting one. RDA allows for both, and many linked-data systems will automatically generate the reciprocal whenever such a relationship is recorded. Frankly I think the related work information is most interesting in the description of the derivative work (referring to the source of that work), but I'm sure there are valid use cases for including them in the description of the source work -- generating (so to speak) a list of all the derivatives of that work. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:37:00 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | John | I am sorry. Do you mean a collection of music or just a movie music? | Also do you mean recording the relationships in both sides? | Thanks, | Joan Wang | On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM, JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu wrote: | | No, they are either | | | (a) contributions to the realization of the movie, typically | | recorded | | in the description of the movie as notes and/or authorized access | | points for the person responsible; | | | or | | | (b) works described in their own right (typically in authority | | records) and recorded in the description of the compilation (or the | | analytic description) as related works. | | | John Attig | | | Authority Control Librarian | | | Penn State University | | | jx...@psu.edu | | | | From: Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu | | | | | | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | | | | | | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:42:36 PM | | | | | | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | | | | | Let's see here. I recently subscribed to KUSC and my gift for | | | giving | | | was music from movies, whether originally composed for the movies | | | or | | | not. Perhaps, it would be catalogued as a collection of music, | | | but | | | then how would you created analytics, if you wanted to? Also | | | Sprach | | | Zarathustra was part of Space Odyssey : 2001, but it wasn't | | | composed | | | for movie. Neither was the Blue Danube. Have they now become | | | expressions of the movie | | | | | | On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse | | | babra...@mit.edu wrote: | | | | | | | Lots to think about! Thanks everyone, | | | | | | | | | | --Ben | | | | | | | | | | Benjamin Abrahamse | | | | | | | | | | Cataloging Coordinator | | | | | | | | | | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | | | | | | | | | | MIT Libraries | | | | | | | | | | 617-253-7137 | | | | | | | | | | -Original Message- | | | | | | | | | | From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description | | | | and | | | | Access [mailto: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca ] On Behalf Of | | | | Kevin | | | | M | | | | Randall | | | | | | | | | | Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:02 PM | | | | | | | | | | To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca | | | | | | | | | | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | | | | | | | | | Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: | | | | | | | | | | In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated | | | | Eastwood | | | | | | | | | | gets composer (expression), | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | because the music is simply one aspect of the realization | | | | of | | | | the | | | | | | | | | | moving- image work . Likewise you later clarified, assign | | | | | | | | | | relationships as expression-level,[i]f the relationship | | | | involves | | | | the | | | | | | | | | | realization rather than the creation of the work. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The | | | | script, | | | | | | | | | | the directing, production… all is about realizing | | | | something. | | | | | | | | | | Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is | | | | realized | | | | | | | | | | has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the | | | | script | | | | intended. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered | | | | properly | | | | | | | | | | part of the work and not simply one aspect? | | | | | | | | | | I have to say that I have the same kind of difficulty with the | | | | distribution of responsibility categories between work and | | | | expression. I'm not sure why author, director, director of | | | | photography, producer and production company are | | | | associated | | | | with
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
I think that what Deborah describes makes sense. However, I don't think that RDA really intended to limit the screenwriter relationship to descriptions of the screenplay alone. Relationships are one of the new frontiers with FRBR/FRAD and RDA; AACR2 didn't have relationships as part of its conceptual tools. I think we are still working out the details and the application. The JSC has noted that the lists of relationship designators are not to be considered as the final word and that additions to the lists are welcome. This is an area where we clearly have more work to do. Another point to note for those who still have one foot in AACR2: One of the conceptual tools in AACR2 that is not available in RDA is the concept of works of mixed responsibility. This was one of the most complicated parts of AACR2 Chapter 21, and it is not surprising that the examples we have been discussion involve mixed responsibility. John - Original Message - | From: Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:41:37 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | John wrote: | “ RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator | relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly | contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of | author and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that | doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not | typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part | of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. “ | I have been interpreting this to mean that the screenwriter would be | given as Creator/Author/Screenwriter only when describing the | screenplay, script, or scene itself, applying 19.2.1.3. | When describing a motion picture of which the screenplay is only one | part, I assumed that the screenwriter would have to fit into the | category of contributor, along with the others. The problem with | that reasoning, however, is that there is no relationship designator | for screenwriter as contributor. | Perhaps one could be added, along the same lines as the composer | example that Thomas pointed out: | I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators | composer A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating | a musical work. Use also for persons, etc., adapting another musical | work to form a distinct alteration (e.g., free transcription), | paraphrasing a work or creating a work in the general style of | another composer, or creating a work that is based on the music of | another composer (e.g., variations on a theme). | I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors | 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. | I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators | screenwriter An author of a screenplay, script, or scene. | Add something like: | I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors | screenwriter (expression) An author of a screenplay, script, or scene | used in the production of a motion picture | Deborah | - - - | Deborah Fritz | TMQ, Inc. | debo...@marcofquality.com | www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
No, but, see, the definition of composer (expression) DOES acknowledge what it means to be linked to the _expression_. Thanks to whoever pointed that out: 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. This makes sense. It is attached to the expression because it is a contribution to the _expression_, not the work. adding music to a work that originally lacked it. If it's an inherent and original component of the work, the composer would NOT have composer (expression) relationship. Per the guidance quoted above, and per the WEMI model itself. This is correct, and should not be changed. If RDA/FRBR is missing a way to record the composer as a contributor (not creator) for a _work_, _that's_ the omission that potentially needs fixing. Likewise, it makes no sense to add a screenwriter (expression) with the guidance you suggest, where _any_ screenwriter will be registered as linked to an 'expression' rather than a 'work' -- the only way that makes sense is if the screenplay written is somehow unique to a particular expression, rather than an inherent and original part of the work, something awfully unlikely (although not impossible or unheard of) for a screenplay, as opposed to music/soundtrack. Whether a relation is attached at 'expression', 'work', or 'manifestation' ought to be a result of whether the _contribution_ WAS to the work, expression, or manifestation -- if you start instead giving guidance that certain kinds of contributions are ALWAYS recorded at the 'expression' level because of the 'role' involved (composer/screenwriter), that makes no sense, and turns RDA's attempt to use a clear ontology into just another library-centric ball of confusion that we've become so adept at creating. Personally, I think it was a confusing mistake to list relator roles as entity-specific, such as composer (expression) (and a corresponding strangely ommitted composer (work) in this case). There should have been a list of roles (composer, screenwriter, etc), that are entity-independent, and instructions to record them in such a way that it's clear what entity is the 'object' of the subject/predicate/object statement. I think someone decided this was inconvenient for some particular technological implementation (MARC, or RDF, or something, I dunno), so did it the way it's currently done instead -- but this leads to nothing but the kind of confusion we're talking about. On 10/9/2012 3:41 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote: John wrote: “RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of author and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. “ I have been interpreting this to mean that the screenwriter would be given as Creator/Author/Screenwriter only when describing the screenplay, script, or scene itself, applying 19.2.1.3. When describing a motion picture of which the screenplay is only one part, I assumed that the screenwriter would have to fit into the category of contributor, along with the others. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that there is no relationship designator for screenwriter as contributor. Perhaps one could be added, along the same lines as the composer example that Thomas pointed out: I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators *composer*A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a musical work. Use also for persons, etc., adapting another musical work to form a distinct alteration (e.g., free transcription), paraphrasing a work or creating a work in the general style of another composer, or creating a work that is based on the music of another composer (e.g., variations on a theme). I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors *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. I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators *screenwriter*An author of a screenplay, script, or scene. Add something like: I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors *screenwriter (expression)*An author of a screenplay, script, or scene used in the production of a motion picture Deborah -- - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
My mistake, sorry, you are correct Jonathan, 'screenwriter' would be at the Work level, in the situation we are discussing, not the Expression level, so what we are missing is, indeed, a way to record the composer as a contributor (not creator) for a _work_ - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -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: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 No, but, see, the definition of composer (expression) DOES acknowledge what it means to be linked to the _expression_. Thanks to whoever pointed that out: 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. This makes sense. It is attached to the expression because it is a contribution to the _expression_, not the work. adding music to a work that originally lacked it. If it's an inherent and original component of the work, the composer would NOT have composer (expression) relationship. Per the guidance quoted above, and per the WEMI model itself. This is correct, and should not be changed. If RDA/FRBR is missing a way to record the composer as a contributor (not creator) for a _work_, _that's_ the omission that potentially needs fixing. Likewise, it makes no sense to add a screenwriter (expression) with the guidance you suggest, where _any_ screenwriter will be registered as linked to an 'expression' rather than a 'work' -- the only way that makes sense is if the screenplay written is somehow unique to a particular expression, rather than an inherent and original part of the work, something awfully unlikely (although not impossible or unheard of) for a screenplay, as opposed to music/soundtrack. Whether a relation is attached at 'expression', 'work', or 'manifestation' ought to be a result of whether the _contribution_ WAS to the work, expression, or manifestation -- if you start instead giving guidance that certain kinds of contributions are ALWAYS recorded at the 'expression' level because of the 'role' involved (composer/screenwriter), that makes no sense, and turns RDA's attempt to use a clear ontology into just another library-centric ball of confusion that we've become so adept at creating. Personally, I think it was a confusing mistake to list relator roles as entity-specific, such as composer (expression) (and a corresponding strangely ommitted composer (work) in this case). There should have been a list of roles (composer, screenwriter, etc), that are entity-independent, and instructions to record them in such a way that it's clear what entity is the 'object' of the subject/predicate/object statement. I think someone decided this was inconvenient for some particular technological implementation (MARC, or RDF, or something, I dunno), so did it the way it's currently done instead -- but this leads to nothing but the kind of confusion we're talking about. On 10/9/2012 3:41 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote: John wrote: “RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of author and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. “ I have been interpreting this to mean that the screenwriter would be given as Creator/Author/Screenwriter only when describing the screenplay, script, or scene itself, applying 19.2.1.3. When describing a motion picture of which the screenplay is only one part, I assumed that the screenwriter would have to fit into the category of contributor, along with the others. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that there is no relationship designator for screenwriter as contributor. Perhaps one could be added, along the same lines as the composer example that Thomas pointed out: I.2.1 Relationship Designators for Creators *composer*A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a musical work. Use also for persons, etc., adapting another musical work to form a distinct alteration (e.g., free transcription), paraphrasing a work or creating a work in the general style of another composer, or creating a work that is based on the music of another composer (e.g., variations on a theme). I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors *composer (expression)*A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression by adding music to a work that originally lacked it, by
Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3
Personally, I think it was a confusing mistake to list relator roles as entity-specific, such as composer (expression) (and a corresponding strangely ommitted composer (work) in this case). There should have been a list of roles (composer, screenwriter, etc), that are entity-independent, and instructions to record them in such a way that it's clear what entity is the 'object' of the subject/predicate/object statement. I think someone decided this was inconvenient for some particular technological implementation (MARC, or RDF, or something, I dunno), so did it the way it's currently done instead -- but this leads to nothing but the kind of confusion we're talking about. RDA goes somewhat in a different direction. Each relationship designator (whether qualified by an entity term or not) is connected to a specific entity-- work, expression, manifestation, or item. Going further, some relationship designators are connected to specific types of works or expressions. Limited scopes for some relationship designators abound: I.2.1. Creators of... landscape works three-dimensional work non-dramatic musical work work of movement musical work design for an object photographic work computer program I.2.2. Associated with a ... criminal proceeding filmed performance television program I.3.1. Contributor to an ... expression of a moving image work expression of a musical work expression of a stage work expression of a primarily non-textual work What is needed is a chart that begins with a specific type of work. RDA already treats moving image works as a special type of collaborative work, with its own instruction for forming the authorized access point (RDA 6.27.1.3). This instruction specifies that no creator or other associated with the work is given first place in forming the authorized access point for a motion picture, but it still leaves open the question of who is a creator/other associated with the moving image work, and who is a contributor. One should be able to work backwards from this starting point of motion picture work, and identify the relationship designators for the creators, others associated with the work, and contributors. Putting together a help sheet would be useful in sorting things out. There are tools in RDA for workflows and maps -- perhaps if someone is up for it, this would be a good place to contribute. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
