Here’s a follow-up on this string. If we’re considering director’s cuts to be expressions and not separate works, is it then not appropriate to use "expanded version of (expression [work?]) / expanded as (expression [work?])" relationships to link the original work NAR to a director’s cut (an expression)?
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The examples in Best Practices for Cataloging DVD/Blu-ray use subfield $l for dubbed versions of the films. Stromboli is a complicated case, because there apparently was an English language version with a shorter running time than the Italian. I would expect the AAP for that to follow the pattern of Mon oncle. Dubbing is different than shooting a separate version of a film.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
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).
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?
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.
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.
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)
University of Washington Libraries
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.
Peter H. Lisius, M.L.S., M.A.
Music and Media Catalog Librarian
Kent State University Libraries
P.O. Box 5190
Kent, OH 44242-0001