Revision Proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)


Revision Proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Revision Proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)

  1. Francis Lapka says:

    Page 1: “We propose to add a new section at … called Recording Duration, which will contain basic instructions on recording duration that will apply to the subsequent instructions …”

    FL: This is an intelligent reorganization. Makes lots of sense.

  2. Francis Lapka says:

    Page 3: “ Scope … Duration also includes performance time for a resource containing notated music or notated movement (see”

    FL: Consider revising the scope to include textual resources (such as plays) that have an intended performance time. Note how Samuel French makes such durations a facet for searching its catalog:

  3. Francis Lapka says:

    Page 5: “ … Optional addition: In some cases, the actual playing time, running time, etc., differs significantly from the time stated on the resource. When this occurs, record the stated playing time followed by that is and the actual playing time, running time, etc. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4).”

    FL: This option is unchanged from the RDA guidelines–but really ought to be reconsidered. Duration is not a transcribed element. The recourse to 2.2.4 is inappropriate (compare Misleading Numbering)

    It is the *actual* playing time that will enable a user to identify and select a resource.

    The erroneous time stated on the resource will be of interest to a minuscule portion of users, if any. It would be better recorded in a note (perhaps in 7.29.1), if at all.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I agree with Francis. I would like to see this instruction revised. If CC:DA decides to keep this optional addition as is, I think we need to add an example or 2 to show how this is done mainly the “Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself” section. It would looks strange to have something that says 3 min.[, that is, 30 min.]

      • Robert L. Maxwell says:

        I strongly agree with Francis. We should be recording the actual playing time. The default should indeed be to take the information from the playing time as stated on the resource (that is, the cataloger doesn’t need to verify), but if the actual playing time is known, that is what should be recorded. Since this is an expression attribute, what happens if different manifestations of the same expression state different playing times? An expression can have only one playing time, and the actual playing time is the one that should be recorded. I’m thinking of current bibliographic records, but I’m also thinking forward to entity-relationship (or linked data) records for expressions. Or for that matter, with a little tweaking of MARC we could record this information in a MARC authority record for the expression, but again, we’d only record a single playing time, the correct one.

        • Kathy Glennan says:

          It would make sense to me to “flip” the optional addition so that the instruction allows the recording of the appropriate duration in all cases, and optionally recording the misstated duration on the resource.

          I note that this is the only place in Chapter 7 that references RDA 2.2.4 — this seems out of place to me, and I think this proposal gives us an opportunity to change that.

          • kelleym says:

            It is odd when you think of it in the expression chapter, but on the other hand some mention of the playing time on the piece is helpful for identification. Despite being an attribute of the expression, it is something that is often taken from the manifestation without verification. We don’t usually count the number of pages in a book, either. We base the count on what’s printed on the manifestation. I would like to see the ability to record the duration on the piece retained in some fashion.

  4. Dominique Bourassa says: “If the resource has a playing time, running time, etc., record the time.”

    I have some issues with this sentence here. All resources of this type have a playing time. The time is either stated or not on the resource. This is obvious by reading the different instructions at a) stated; b) not stated but readily ascertainable; c) neither stated on the resource nor readily ascertainable; d) cannot be approximated.

    Therefore the phrase “if the resource has a playing time” is not necessary.
    If the sentence means “if the resource has a “stated” playing time, then it is still not necessary because it is already in the instruction at a). Or, the instructions at b) c) and d) are misplaced because they explain what to do when there the time is not stated.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Similar phrasing also occurs in

      It seems like we might have a situation here with preferred sources in Should we consider a priority order of sources — not just any source? Say, 1) stated in the resource, 2) ascertainable from the resource, 3) available from an external source. [Note: this is just a first thought — I’m sure it can be better refined!]

      The further up 7.22 we deal with this, the simpler the subsequent instructions will be.

  5. Dominique Bourassa says: Duration of Individual Component Parts.

    Does this also apply to performance time? Is there a way to make it clear within the instruction that this applies to both performed and notated/written resources? (Maybe by putting under the instruction notes that say something such as performance time of individual movements of a score…; playing time of the individual movements on a CD).

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    To date, RDA has not specified a preferred way to record duration, and this proposal does nothing to change that.

    While the flexibility is probably a good thing, the examples leave catalogers thinking that they are transcribing, rather than recording, the duration. Is there some way to convey explicitly that this is an application decision? (Such as adding language along the lines of “in the format preferred by the cataloguing agency”?)

Leave a Reply