Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> 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

Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Deborah Fritz]

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

Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Jonathan Rochkind]

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 

www.marcofquality.com 

Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[JOHN C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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

[JOHN C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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 difficult

Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Deborah Fritz]

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

[Joan Wang]

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  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" 
> *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 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.
>
>
>


-- 
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 C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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

[Joan Wang]

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  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 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.
>
>


-- 
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

[Gene Fieg]

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 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

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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

[Kevin M Randall]

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

[JOHN C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

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

[Joan Wang]

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 wrote:

>  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" 
> *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

[Kevin M Randall]

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] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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<mailto:jx...@psu.edu>

From: "Jerri Swinehart" mailto:swine...@oakland.edu>>
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto: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<mailto:swine...@oakland.edu>

Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3

[Jerri Swinehart]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:08 PM, JOHN C ATTIG  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 C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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

[Gene Fieg]

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 wrote:

> 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" 
> > *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

[Jerri Swinehart]

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 A Abrahamse]

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" 
> *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

[Jonathan Rochkind]

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

[JOHN C ATTIG]

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" 
| 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" 
| > *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

[JOHN C ATTIG]

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" 
| To: "Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
| Access" 
| Cc: "JOHN C ATTIG" 
| 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" 
| > *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

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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" 
> *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

[Jonathan Rochkind]

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" 
*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

[JOHN C ATTIG]

"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 

- Original Message -

| From: "Benjamin A Abrahamse" 
| 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