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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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;
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
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 .
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
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 ...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
