Can I infer from your posting, then, John, that RDA will not follow FRBR in considering Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet to be a different work than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet?
Martha %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martha M. Yee Cataloging Supervisor UCLA Film & Television Archive 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616 323-462-4921 x27 323-469-9055 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email) http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something particularly abstruse and mysterious"--John Stuart Mill. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Attig Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki Diane et al. Be warned that there are those of us who do not agree with Greta and Kelley and Martha that actors are related to the work rather than the expression. Even if there is only one expression of a work, it is possible to make a distinction between the creation of the work and its realization in an expression. It is arguable that actors, as well as directors, producers, script writers, film editors, costume and set designers, sound engineers, etc. etc. contribute to the realization of the work, not its creation. In the case of motion pictures, the extensive nature of the collaboration involved makes it extremely difficult to identify ANY role as that of creator -- which is probably why the practice of identifying such works solely by their preferred titles, without including the name of a creator, makes sense. The interpretation of FRBR as it applies to motion pictures that has emerged from this discussion is, in my opinion, not a mainstream interpretation of FRBR and should be used with extreme caution as the basis for your work. John Attig At 03:11 PM 3/11/2008, McGrath, Kelley C. wrote: >Greta wrote... > >Scenario 3. > >And I hate to be a broken record, but in films Actors would be >associated with the work, not the expression. They are not going to >reshoot the film with different actors. (ok, in case anybody knows >about them, i'm ignoring the early talkie films which were >simultaneously shot in different language versions with casts that are >sometimes the same, sometimes different--they are borderline cases. I >would not consider the shot for shot remake of Psycho a borderline case) > >-------------------------------------------- > >Diane, > >Thanks for changing the actors. I would also like to thank you for >modeling your moving image scenario on Martha Yee's chapter rather than >what has been in the RDA drafts to date. So far the RDA drafts have been >rather at odds with the way the other OLAC (Online Audiovisual >Catalogers) reviewers and I would have thought of moving image works >(leaving aside the potentially messy question of recordings of live >performances of previously existing works) and have put not only actors, >but directors, cinematographers, and producers at the expression level. >This is true even in the fairly recent draft appendix dealing with roles >(http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5lc11.pdf). Or perhaps you >know something I don't about future RDA directions? > >Kelley McGrath
