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