A distinction between dubbed films using $l and those captured using multiple takes with the actors speaking the same lines in different languages ($s)? Mark K. Ehlert University of St. Thomas Libraries Sent from Outlook<https://aka.ms/sdimjr> for iOS ________________________________ From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:19 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access points -- director's cuts of motion pictures Thanks for asking this Yang. I also wondered about the location of the parentheses. If these were monograph expression headings the expression elements would go outside of the final ), but I thought maybe things were different for motion pictures. Jessica From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:53 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access points -- director's cuts of motion pictures Thanks a lot, Adam! This is truly helpful to those of us who want to establish expression-level NARs. I have a question on “language versions” of a motion picture. Are there two ways to formulate such access points? 1) Mon oncle (Motion picture : ǂs English version) 2) Stromboli (Motion picture). $l English. The 2nd heading is not in NAF but is used as an example in the Best Practices for Cataloging DVD/Blu-ray – Version 1.1 (November 2017) (http://www.olacinc.org/sites/default/files/DVD_Blu-ray-RDA-Guide-Version-1-1-final-aug2018-rev-1.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.olacinc.org_sites_default_files_DVD-5FBlu-2Dray-2DRDA-2DGuide-2DVersion-2D1-2D1-2Dfinal-2Daug2018-2Drev-2D1.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3DsyBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw%26m%3D4FkI7Zc65EE1rlgLFJ7ZE88zMTQZzp_be6CmLeR8NO8%26s%3Dj0UEgOTRWqfdwvKOqqCO-YfbPBGWyK0uSzNKaBuW4Gk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cehle0001%40STTHOMAS.EDU%7C73004d95b00e44bb1f6508d659f38ecc%7Ca081ff79318c45ec95f338ebc2801472%7C1%7C0%7C636795299951483919&sdata=u6yhJPhQtBhqsTatIyHk9avjF%2FP5M2cazgt2nQV2UxE%3D&reserved=0>). Also, is it necessary to provide a work-level access point in addition to expression-level access point(s), considering that the work is already implicit in the expression? In Peter’s case, he could use both in the same bibliographic record? What is LC/PCC’s best practice on this? page 196-197: 730 02 $i Container of (work): $a Europa '51. 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Europa '51. $l English. 730 02 $i Container of (work): $a Stromboli (Motion picture) 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Stromboli (Motion picture). $l English. page 215: 730 02 $i Container of (work): $a Alvin and the Chipmunks (Motion picture : 2007) 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Alvin and the Chipmunks (Motion picture : 2007). $l French. 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Alvin and the Chipmunks (Motion picture : 2007). $l Spanish. Yang From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 10:15 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access points -- director's cuts of motion pictures Peter, RDA and PCC policy only requires you to name the work manifested with an authorized access point. You can describe the expression with other descriptive elements such as edition statement. However, I think it’s a good idea in a situation like this to specifically name the expression rather than the work. So, you start with the authorized access point for the work, and then add expression elements. The correct punctuation is given in RDA E.1.2.5: Enclose these elements in parentheses: form of work date of work place of origin of work other distinguishing characteristic of work other distinguishing characteristic of expression. When multiple elements are enclosed in parentheses, separate them with a space, colon, space. All expression elements are separately subfielded, so you end up with AAPs such as Amadeus (Motion picture : ǂs Director's cut) Apocalypse now (Motion picture : ǂs Redux) Blade runner (Motion picture : ǂs Final cut) Gojira (Motion picture : ǂs American version) Gold rush (Motion picture : 1925 : ǂs Sound version) Margaret (Motion picture : 2011 : Lonergan : ǂs Extended version) Mon oncle (Motion picture : ǂs English version) Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (Motion picture : ǂs 1978 version) --Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LISIUS, PETER Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 1:42 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Access points -- director's cuts of motion pictures Hi, all, I’m soliciting advice from the collective wisdom. I have in hand a director’s cut of the 1985 film Amadeus. It has, as the box states, “20 minutes of never-before-seen footage.” There is a NAR in the NAF for the theatrical release (n 84156787). I’m attempting to determine if there is a need to establish a second NAR for the director’s cut. A search on “ti:director’s cut” in the NAF yields three results, which doesn’t seem like much of a precedence (Apocalypse now : redux (no2015026869); Blade runner (no2008127546); and, Nixon (no2018128750)). That being said, however, each of these three examples seem to be on solid ground in terms of establishment. They go way beyond simple edits in terms of content. Thoughts? Best, Peter H. Lisius, M.L.S., M.A. Music and Media Catalog Librarian Associate Professor Kent State University Libraries P.O. Box 5190 Kent, OH 44242-0001 (330) 672-6316 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>