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. Simon p.s. 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.