On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Oddly enough, the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner was basically the
> original work print, and was not really  Scott's true vision

[Premature send]  driven by a  showing of an original work print that was
found by someone browsing the archives for something different. The
director's cut was approved by Scott, but he was too busy to work on it
much himself- the much later  final cut was the result of massive archival
and restoration work, and was Scott's real goal.

The work print did not contain part of the Van Gelis score.

One of the advantages available from a move towards a more semantic and
less record oriented approach to bibliographic description is that the
relationship between entities can be  expressed.

There are  benefits to workflows for non-unique artifacts that can be
gained just  from breaking down records into their irreducible elements
(reducing the amount of duplicate original cataloging, with time instead
used to improve the quality of the shared descriptions -  Visualize Whirled
Cats.)   Note that the record as unified utterance is part of the

At the moment bibframe is sufficiently under-determined to tell which stool
it will come to rest upon.

I would consider all of the versions to be expressions of the same
conceptual work;  had the film been closer to Dick's novel I would consider
the novel to express the same work, but if FRBR in that world were the same
as in ours, it wouldn't be.  It would, however,  be possible for Deckard
not to have been a Replicant.