The responses listed below have been added to the JSC web site:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html or
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html (click on proposal or paper).
Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary
= = = = =
6JSC/ACOC/5/BL response
6JSC/ACOC/6/BL response
6JSC/ALA/5/BL response
6JSC/
> 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-inde
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
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 m
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 c
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 sh
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 wo
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 wrote:
> No, they are either
>
> (a) contributions to the realization of the movie, typically rec
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 desc
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 Bre
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
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
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca]
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,"[
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 mo
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 wo
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
differenc
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
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 met
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 "
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:08 PM, JOHN C ATTIG 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
was that wr
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; y
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, Schoen
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 plea
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
[mailto:RDA-L@
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 t
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 us
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 crea
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
-Original
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 whole
"Composer" is qualified by "expression" because there is also a relationship
designator for "composer" of a musical work.
"Composer (Expression)" is used because the music is simply one aspect of the
realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is therefore a
contributor to the expre
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 compo
On 09/10/2012 16:02, Paradis Daniel wrote:
>
> 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 "Inc
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 t
On 08/10/2012 19:27, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> 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 t
34 matches
Mail list logo