Thanks, John for posting your interpretation of FRBR (even
unofficially). I have to admit that the other OLAC reviewers and I have
been extremely puzzled as to how RDA was coming up with the FRBR mapping
that it used and even though I still don't agree with it, I do
understand it a little better now.
I am having trouble understanding how a film can have NO creator (I
mean, films don't just show up ex nihilo) and what is meant by the
creation of a moving image work if it isn't what is done by the
directors, cinematographers, cast, etc.
I'm not sure I can articulate this very well, but it seems to me that in
the RDA drafts there is some conflation between things that actually
should be independent dimensions. For example, work-level credits are
equated with creators are equated with citation format/main entry (or
main entry plus those added entries that perform the same function) and
expression-level credits are equated with contributors are equated with
added entries. I also agree with Greta's comment somewhere that it is
not clear to me why a given role has to only be assigned to a single
FRBR level. Why couldn't a role and a FRBR level be assigned
independently (at least in some cases) with the pairing determining the
meaning. With moving images, it's not hard to think of examples where
this would be desirable. If RDA insists on one point of view, I would
prefer to err in the other direction, such that a visual interpretation
is a new work.
I suspect that within the moving image cataloging community, the
mainstream view would fall closer to Greta's, Martha's and my view. In
all of OLAC's comments on RDA, we have tried to state strongly that
directors, etc. of films should be work-level credits. I notice also
that in the LC comments on last summer's drafts of chapters 6-7, there
is the statement that
"Concerns have been expressed by LC's experts in the cataloguing of
moving image resources about relegating to the expression what they
consider to be co-creators (directors, producers, writers, etc.) when
the same roles for other content/genres are creators for the work. They
also consider production companies (now at the work level) to be the
same as directors, producers, writers, etc. They do realize the
implications when naming the work and they do want to continue naming
the work by using its title proper or a preferred title. LC recommends
naming these persons/families/bodies as creators with an exception in
chapter 13 saying not to name a moving image work using the first-named
creator."
Kelley McGrath
****
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
