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 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 <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> > > www.marcofquality.com <http://www.marcofquality.com> >
