Thank you for your message on the FRBR-inspired thinking. I'll second Karen's request that you get this or an expansion of this note published.
With as complex a thing as a film--so many "authors", images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. Could you explain this a bit more?
> This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more
> orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR
> doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is
> important to record the original language of a moving image at the
> top level.