Thank you, Karen,
It has been awhile since I refreshed my memory with actually reading FRBR. Language is an attribute of the FRBR expression and not the FRBR work entity. I must still have a dominate pre-FRBR concept of work in my mind! I need another 5 years in the re-education camp.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>:
Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on
our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-)
> 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.
Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it
is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's
kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of
the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a
very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted
implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression
attributes in some way.)
Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be
missing from FRBR: the concept of a "original Expression." For FRBR
(and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no
privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that
this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user
studies  around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come
up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where
knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be
> 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?
The FRBR relationship "translation of" is an Expression-to-Expression
relationship. (See my personal "cheat sheet" of RDA/FRBR relationships
> Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
>> 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.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net