Proposal: Revision proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)

CC:DA/MLA/2014/3/Rev
CC:DA/OLAC/2014/4/Rev
July 14, 2014

Revision proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)

NOTICE: This motion has been withdrawn.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Proposal: Revision proposal on Recording Duration (7.22)

  1. Francis Lapka says:

    Pardon my curmudgeonly persistence, but here again are my objections to recording duration based on erroneous statements present on a Manifestation.

    1. Duration is not a transcribed element. The pattern ” … that is … ” does not make sense outside of the context of prescribed transcription.

    2. Any attribute of an Expression (such as Duration) must be appropriate to all Manifestations that embody the Expression. Only the correct duration (when known) can serve to collocate the various Manifestations that embody the single Expression.

    3. Furthermore, I’m still not entirely convinced that the erroneous Duration data enables any user functions. Admittedly, I’m not of the target community. Could the proposal authors articulate use cases where it serves the *user* to record erroneous stated duration (at all) when the accurate duration is known?

    4. As Tracey suggests, I think it very likely that the Machine Actionable Data TF would recommend a change to the instructions as currently written–to prefer the actual duration, when known.

    All of that said, I do not wish to impede the proposal from going forward to JSC, so that it may fix the problems it originally targeted.

    – Francis Lapka

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Francis makes a good point about the (correct) expression info. collocating the manifestations. I definitely acknowledge that Ch. 7 is not a great place for instructions about recording erroneous information from a manifestation. However, we were just working with what was already in RDA (the Optional Addition with “that is”) and trying to improve on it in the short term. The use case for recording the erroneous information (in addition to the correct information) is that it aids in identification of a manifestation. We could always tweak this again and just make it about recording the correct duration of the expression and wait until the next revision cycle to address recording erroneous duration for manifestations.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I agree with Francis. Chapter 7 is about expressions. The problem with erroneous statements of duration is pretty clearly at the manifestation level; thus any instructions relating to this situation would be much more appropriate in Chapter 3.

    The current 7.22.1.3 is one of only two places in RDA where catalogers are instructed to record “that is” after misleading information; the other one is in 3.4.5.5. Unfortunately, there isn’t a readily available place for the incorrect duration instruction to reside in Chapter 3.

    So, as an interim solution, I recommend that the revised instruction focus on recording the actual duration. As an alternative (in 7.22.1.4.a), the duration stated on the resource could also be recorded, if it was ascertained to be incorrect, and the difference was considered important for identification and selection.

    I know that a majority of the revision group does not agree with this approach.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    With my apologies to the revision group for not thinking of this sooner, I’m wondering if the Alternatives proposed for 7.22.1.4 might be able to be accommodated in 3.4.1.9 (Subunits in resources consisting of more than one unit) in some fashion.

    I have some significant reservations about including instructions in Chapter 7 that are so clearly related to physical manifestations, even in an Alternative — this really is Chapter 3 “stuff”. (I should note that I have no concerns about RDA containing this instruction — the question is where.)

    • Francis Lapka says:

      As I understand it, the alternatives in 7.22.1.4 (proposal numbering) apply to *single* units of content that, in a particular manifestation, have been divided up onto multiple carriers. This is in contrast to the scenario in 7.22.1.6, where we have *distinct* component units of content.

      If the above is true, then the only appropriate duration to record at the Expression level (in 7.22.1.4) is that of the total playing time of the that single unit—because different manifestations may divide the content in different ways (if at all). So, in the example given, we’d want:

      7.22 Duration (extent of Expression): 5:04:00 [give or take]
      3.4 Extent: 4 audio discs

      We still want somewhere to record how the duration is divided up among the discs. Semantically, neither 3.4.1.7 nor 3.4.1.9 are quite appropriate, because the data we have (duration divisions) do not refer to subunits of carrier extent. The M.A.D. TF has discussed an element to record “details of extent” where, for various reasons, the data may not be recorded neatly in our A-U-Q model. This element has some overlap, I think, with 3.21.2 Note on Extent of Manifestation.

      I would recommend using 3.21.2 (somewhere) to handle the alternatives. I also think that if it’s useful for the user to know how the durations have been divided among the carriers, then it would be very useful to indicate which disc carriers which duration. I recommend:

      3.21.2.x ______ : Disc 1: 73 min., 33 sec.; disc 2: 75 min., 33 sec.; disc 3: 78 min., 10 sec.; disc 4: 77 min., 2 sec.

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        Thanks, Kathy and Francis, for your suggestions on how to deal with some of this stuff in Ch. 3. Is this something we should attempt this year, in this proposal? Or should we scrap this aspect of the current proposal and put it on the docket for next year?

  4. John Myers says:

    Off-hand, given the current practice of recording duration in parentheses to 300$a, I would have expected such instructions to be under 3.4.1.7 Number of subunits. (Sorry to be so late to the parade.) But RDA seems to have focused on the duration as an element of the content of the expression. There does seem to be some difficulties with mapping data as found on the resource to an expression level element. If we are going to focus on expression elements, then I think the guidance should prefer accurate, consistently formatted data. Perhaps deviations from accuracy on the manifestation can be addressed in a note? (Although no such note exists under 3.21. Consider or ignore this as is practical and in giving it the weight it deserves from a source who is surprised by the extent of his own misapplied assumptions in this area.

  5. John Myers says:

    In the renumbered 7.22.1.4 Playing Time, Running Time, etc., under the Alternative, the 2nd set of if/then statements, we strike through “followed by each” and replace “each” in the first example with “per audiocassette”. I’m unclear why this change is warranted. Further, in light of the discussions above, I have a reservation why we would be indicating a manifestation specific carrier in data relevant to the expression. This reservation has implications for the 1st set of if/then statements as well.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Hi John,
      This was a suggestion from an MLA colleague who noted that using “each” wouldn’t make any sense unless it were displayed in conjunction with extent. This quick-and-dirty change was an attempt to accommodate different implementation scenarios. Of course, duration is annoyingly closely tied to extent, as we have seen from this discussion.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Here are some excerpts from ISBD Consolidated, related to this proposal — in case they are of any interest.

    5.1.5 Playing time
    5.1.5.1 The extent of any resource having an inherent durational aspect is recorded in terms of playing time.
    Optionally, for motion pictures and videorecordings, the physical length of the film may be added to the statement of playing time.

    5.1.5.2 The playing time recorded is normally that of the whole resource. It is recorded as given on the resource, its container, or accompanying material. When no indication of duration is given, an approximation of the playing time may be recorded. If it is impossible to give either a precise statement of playing time or an approximation, the statement is omitted.

    5.1.5.3 If a resource consists of more than one unit of the same physical form (i.e. more than one disc, cassette, etc.), each of which has its own statement of playing time, the playing times of the individual units are recorded instead of that of the whole resource.

    5.1.5.4 If a resource contains two or more works, the playing times of the individual works, if given on the resource, are recorded in area 7 (see 7.10.1). Such a note may be combined with the contents note (see 7.7). When the playing times of individual works are recorded in area 7, the playing time of the whole resource may be omitted from the material description area.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Thanks, Kathy. So, does 5.1.5.3 actually then support the double-alternative in the Playing Time, Running Time, Etc. instruction? I don’t think the content vs. carrier problem for multi-unit resources is as much of a problem as the philosophical WEMI-mixing problem of transcribing incorrect duration from a manifestation; the duration of the individual units is still expression-level information. It just happens to correspond with the carrier units.

      • John Myers says:

        I’m afraid I would disagree. (Sigh) There are still significant WEMI modeling issues between ISBD and FRBR/RDA with regards to multi-unit resources. If a performance is recorded, it has an overall duration/playing time/etc. that corresponds to the expression. This could then be rendered in any number of manifestation-specific carrier formats that chunk up the performance into different “sub-durations” dependent on the capacity of each carrier. This is proving very challenging in the context of historical practice and the persistence of composite WEMI data in our MARC bibliographic records.

  7. atarango says:

    Our AV cataloger is in agreement with Francis and Kathy and would support having the instructions dealing with incorrect durations in chapter 3 with references between those and the related instruction in chapter 7.

    Different minor point, for the heading of the new 7.22.1.4 “Playing Time, Running Time, Etc.” for clarity, might we add a parenthetical like “(for Performance Time see 7.22.1.5)?

  8. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Mark Ehlert and I have been having a little side conversation by email. With his permission to post, here is a summary. He points out that there are some instances of date of earliest manifestation being allowed to substitute for date of work or expression (since it is a date of the first embodiment of the content). We observe this in 6.4.1.1 and 6.10.1.1. Could this help ease our discomfort about relying on carrier units for information about the expression of the content therein? (I am referring to the double-alternative about multi-unit resources, not the problem of what to do with erroneous stated playing time.)

  9. John Myers says:

    So let me think aloud a little bit here. A performed Work/Expression has duration. This usually corresponds to a time frame indicated on the Manifestation. But sometimes: the Manifestation indicates inaccurate data; the Manifestation is “chunked” into time frames dictated by the capacity of the carrier; the Manifestation may contain multiple Works/Expressions whose duration may have a complicated relationship to the time frame indicated on the Manifestation. Is there a solution that resolves these in a fashion that is both intellectually “clean” and aesthetically “pretty”? (And by “pretty” I mean that we don’t end up double recording identical data of Work/Expression duration and Manifestation time frame in the 80% of cases where they are the same.)

    The “cleanest” solution might be to have two distinct elements – one for the Work/Expression duration and another for the Manifestation time frame(s). The manifestation time frame(s) element might remain in 300$a as a subunit of the extent, with the Work/Expression duration being recorded elsewhere. This though would cause “unpretty” double recording in most cases. Such a manifestation time frame would also need to be defined as a subunit of extent for the appropriate carriers, most likely as an exceptional rule.

    An alternative, which is where I see Francis’ and possibly Kathy’s comments heading, is to “purify” the duration data, currently recorded in the subunit position of 300$, to solely reflect the correct, overall duration of the Work/Expression. Instances where the manifestation data deviates from that – inaccuracies, carrier specific time frames, etc. – could be recorded in a note. This though maintains the “mixing of apples and oranges” practice of embedding Work/Expression data within Manifestation specific data.

    There are likely other possibilities, but these present themselves most readily to my mind. Of the two, despite the downside of “mixing apples and oranges,” the latter seems to require fewer changes to RDA, the existing RDA-MARC modeling, and current practice (which is to say, the corresponding edits to our proposal might be accomplished within the remaining time we have to submit for the November JSC meeting).

Leave a Reply