Is anyone else having trouble connecting to the Code4Lib registration website (https://www.confmanager.com/main.cfm?cid=2375)?  It took me about 15 minutes to get connected initially, now it's hanging after page 2 (of 9?).

-- Michael

# Michael Doran, Systems Librarian
# University of Texas at Arlington
# 817-272-5326 office
# 817-688-1926 mobile
# [log in to unmask]
# http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen
> Coyle
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:51 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 [1] 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
> important.
> 
> > 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
> [2]).
> 
> kc
> [1] http://www.asis.org/asist2010/abstracts/75.html
> [2] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html
> 
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> >
> > -----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.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet