Demonstrate understanding of basic principles and standards involved in organizing information such as classification and controlled vocabulary systems, cataloging systems, metadata schemas or other systems for making information accessible to a particular clientele.
“Cataloguing is an ancient profession; there are examples of such “ordainers of the universe” (as they were called by the Sumerians) among the oldest vestiges of libraries.”
-Alberto Manguel
EXPLICATION
The overarching goal of libraries and librarians is connecting people with information of all types and formats, both in the library and through remote access. In order to accomplish this, materials must be organized in some manner that allows it to be efficiently searched for and retrieved. A list of any library’s collection is known as a catalog. In times past, a library’s catalog was a physical filing system—a card catalog—within the library; searching for a specific item might require perusing the card catalogs of several libraries, necessitating traveling from one library to the next. Electronic forms of bibliographic records, called MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) records, make up today’s online version of the card catalog, known as an Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). OPACs make it possible for today’s library user to access, browse, and search a library catalog from remote locations via computer, tablet, or smartphone. The current version for MARC records is known as MARC 21. MARC records are created using cataloging and classification standards that allow information to be shared between libraries.
Cataloging
Cataloging refers to the practice of creating bibliographic records that function as unique surrogates for items in a library’s collection. Each new item added to a library’s collection must first be catalogued. Bibliographic records allow patrons to “discover” or find items in a library’s collection. Descriptive cataloging involves determining bibliographic elements and their values. Bibliographic records describe an item in terms of its physical description and “aboutness,” or content, and each is assigned a unique control, or ascension, number as a means of identification. Description of items are based on International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). Attributes of an item are entered into specific fields. Essentially, standardization comes from assigning specific information to specific fields. In other words, the authors name always goes in field 100, the title in field 245, etc. Some fields are repeatable, such as the 650 field for subject headings, but even repeatable fields contain a specific type of information.
The consistency resulting from standardization is what makes MARC records shareable. The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) are the current metadata standards for cataloging, although transition to a new standard, Resource Description and Access (RDA), is in progress. RDA has been developed to accommodate the increasing diversity of materials, particularly electronic resources. Rubin (2010) notes, “RDA provides a framework to describe both analog and digital data, and adapts to database structures and existing online catalogs” (p. 142). RDA uses an “‘entity relationship’” model known as the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). FRBR is concerned with the user’s ability to find, identify, select, and obtain items (Rubin, 2010). Attributes are expressed in terms of three groups:
- Group 1: “products of creative or artistic endeavors … work, expression, manifestation and item” (Rubin, 2010, pp. 143-144)
- Group 2: “persons or corporate bodies responsible for creation, production, and distribution of Group 1 entities” (p. 144)
- Group 3: “subjects of works” (p. 144).
FRBR makes relationships among entities more explicit, thus providing “improved searching for staff and users” (Rubin, 2010, p. 144).
An important component of bibliographic records are access points. Access points are fields containing attributes that people can search by and include “main entry,” “added entry,” and “subject headings.” Access points are indexed separately, depending on the type of information they contain. Main entry access points generally refer to authorship, or if authorship is undetermined, then the title. Added entries are those containing other information about the entity such as title variations, and names of collaborators, editors, translators, illustrators, etc. Subject headings contain attributes capturing the aboutness of an entity. Authority control—the process of assigning authorized forms of names, series, and subjects—helps ensure consistency of information in access points through standardization of terms. (Bolin, 2013). For example, the author of the novel, Frankenstein, may be referred to as Mary Shelley or Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Based on the rules of authority control, one name, say Mary Shelley, would be the preferred or standardized name and anyone searching for Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley would be redirected to entries for Mary Shelley. Aggregation of variations on author name or title helps ensure that searches return all possible items that may reflect the user’s search request. Cataloguers should refer to the Library of Congress Name Authority File. Essentially, authority control is a form of controlled vocabulary.
Controlled vocabulary helps ensure the consistency of subject headings necessary for collocation of items with similar topics. Common sources for subject headings are the Library of Congress Subject Headings(LCSH) and the Sears List of Subject Headings. LCSH subject headings are more complex in they allow for broadening or narrowing a topic as well as noting related terms. For example, items about the volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon IO could be assigned a narrow subject heading—lunar volcanoes—rather than be lumped into the more general and wide ranging topic of volcanoes. According to Morville (2005), a system supporting navigation and retrieval (such as an OPAC) requires definition, distinction, and difference. In order to return the most relevant information to users, an information retrieval (IR) system must be able to aggregate, discriminate, and disambiguate information in the bibliographic records. A primary aid in this ability is the consistency and specificity of assigned subject headings.
Classification
In order to facilitate browsing and locating items in a library’s collection, systems of classification have been developed. Rubin (2010) cites Kwasnik’s (1992) explanation of the usefulness of classification as providing “‘a descriptive and explanatory framework for ideas and a structure of the relationships among the ideas’” (p. 129). The two most prominent classification systems used in American libraries are the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification (LCC).
Dewey Decimal Classification
The DDC system has been the most widely used form of classification since being developed by Melvil Dewey in 1876. It is used in libraries around the world and in the United States, it is the most prevalent form of classification used in public and school libraries. The logic behind DDC is that all knowledge can be filed into “one of ten main classes representing traditional academic disciplines” (Rubin, 2010, p. 129). Each class is further broken down in ten divisions, each of which is further broken down into ten more sections. This allows for recognition of hierarchical relationships, with each subdivision allowing for greater specificity. For example, the Dewey classification number for volcanoes is 551.21. This number is derived as follows:
Class 500 – Science
Division 550 – Earth sciences and geology
Section 551 – Geology, hydrology, and meteorology
551.21 – Volcanoes
The length of the decimal number is an indication of specificity; highly detailed subdivisions will have longer decimal numbers.
While the DDC is relatively easy to use—thus its popularity—it has its drawbacks. The main problem is that it is a closed system, limited to numbers between 000 and 999. New disciplines “must be accommodated within the existing ten classes” (Rubin, 2010, p. 130). Because the system is based on classes delineated in the 19th century, many new concepts have no clear place in the DDC. Another drawback comes in its use for specialized collections. For special libraries with collections that largely deal with one class area, the decimal number can become unwieldy as it is elongated to accommodate specificity.
Library of Congress Classification
Libraries with larger and/or more complex collections, such as academic and research libraries, tend to use the LCC system. Twenty-one main classes are designated by the letters of the alphabet. Subdivisions of the main classes are designated by two, and occasionally three, letters. Format for LCC numbers is one to three letters indicating class and subclass, followed by a number from 1-9999 indicating a book’s subject. Further specificity is added using Cutter numbers to reference that author or title of the book, which is followed by the year of publication. For example, a book on Shakespearean tragedy, the LCC classification is PR2983.S448 1992, indicating:
Main and subclass: PR – English Literature
Subject: 2983 – English renaissance (1500-1640)
Cutter number: .S448 – references Shakespeare’s name
1992 – year of publication
Metadata
Metadata “is structured information that describes, explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to retrieve, use, or manage an information resource” (NISO, 2004). In the context of information organization, bibliographic records are metadata whose rules for creation, such as AACR2 and RDA, are metadata standards. The proliferation of electronic sources of information has made metadata schemata critical for organizing information in a way that makes it locatable.
COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT
I was introduced to the concepts integral to classification and cataloging in INFO-202, Information Retrieval System Design. In particular, I began learning how items of information are organized and how surrogates are a representation of an item in the form of a bibliographic record. I learned how indexing of controlled language terms may be pre- or post-coordinated. And I learned about how aggregation, discrimination, and disambiguation effect the search process. My knowledge on these concepts increased in INFO-244, Online Searching, as I honed my search skills using a variety of databases. In particular, I learned through experience how important consistency imparted through the use of controlled language in the form of subject headings is invaluable in aggregation of relevant results to search queries. My understanding of how information is organized for retrieval continued in INFO-247, Vocabulary Design, where I gained an understanding of facet classification, term selection, and creating an index that shows the relationship between terms. In INFO-248, Beginning Cataloging and Classification, I learned how to create MARC records using AACR2 and RDA metadata standards. I became familiar with both the DDC and LCC classification systems. Assignments required gaining practical experience in creating MARC records, which allowed me to become familiar with using resources such as the RDA Toolkit, the Library of Congress Classification Outline, The Catalogers Calculator, OCLC Classify, and the Library of Congress Authorities. The sum total of knowledge gained in these classes gives me a deep and well-rounded understanding of how and why information is organized and how effective and efficient retrieval of information sources is dependent on that organization.
EVIDENCE
1. INFO-202: Assigning Attributes for Searchable Records
One of the difficult aspects of cataloging items is assigning attributes that accurately represent the aboutness of an item. In MARC21 records, the use of controlled vocabulary in the form of subject headings allows for the consistency necessary to ensure collocation of similar items. Thus, when users search for a particular type of item, aggregation and disambiguation based on subject heading attributes ensures that users will find all items that meet the terms of their query and leave out those that do not.
An assignment for INFO-202 required me to catalog a series of items. Before creating the records for the items, I had to decide what attributes would describe the aboutness of each item, i.e., I had to define the fields that provided the searchable information for the catalog items. I then had to catalog the items based on those pre-determined attributes using a controlled language that would allow for aggregation and disambiguation. The field for “breed” is the field where authority control would be used to standardize how a breed was noted. The rest are subject fields requiring assignment of attributes describing the item. This assignment demonstrates my understanding of the importance in assigning attributes that describe each item in a catalog and the importance of consistency through use of controlled vocabulary.
2. DDC and LCC Classification
In most libraries, materials are organized using one of two common classification systems: Dewey Decimal Classification or Library of Congress Classification. It is important that librarians be familiar with how to assign classification numbers using each system. An assignment for INFO-248 required assigning DDC and LCC classification numbers to the same ten items as a lesson in understanding how to use each system. In assigning DDC numbers, I used the OCLC’s “Classify” site. I entered the subject heading already assigned to an item into the Subject Heading box. The result was a link that led to books classified with that subject heading. I clicked on the book whose title seemed to most closely relate to the book for which I was assigning a classification number and was given the most frequent DDC and LCC numbers used for items with that topic. To complete the classification number, I used the The Cataloging Calculator (also know as the Cutter Calculator). I entered the author’s last name into the search box and chose the search option LC Cutter. My approach and experience are summarized at the end of the list of records.
3. Library of Congress Subject Headings
As mentioned previously, a critical step in cataloging items is assigning subject headings that best capture the aboutness of an item. The concept of aboutness reminds me of a philosophical discussion that took place in a literary theory class while I was an undergraduate. The discussion centered around this image:
The caption for this famous print is “This is not a pipe.” Some of the class looked at this image and said, “Of course it is a pipe.” Others looked at the image and agreed with the caption: their realization was that it is actually an IMAGE of a pipe. The point is, aboutness is about perception, and without guidelines (e.g., controlled vocabulary), the aboutness of any one item may be described in a multitude of ways. Furthermore, subtle differences in the perception of aboutness can change how an item is described. For example, while books with the subject heading “Psychology-Women” may be related to those with the subject heading “Women-Psychology,” there are subtle differences that may mean that assigning the wrong subject heading will result in a book not collocated correctly.
A common source used for determining appropriate subject headings is the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Using standardized LCSHs provides consistency in terminology, which is important in assuring collocation of items with similar topics. An assignment for INFO-248 required assigning subject headings to a MARC records for a mini-collection of twenty items. This assignment demonstrated the difficulty of choosing the most appropriate subject headings for items with which the cataloger is unfamiliar, i.e., items for which there is no intimate knowledge about the topic, where only the title and (perhaps) a back-cover summary provide hints as to an item’s topic. A brief summary of my approach is included at the end of the list of records. As it is the final in a series of assignments that required creating bibliographic records for a small catalog of items, this item of evidence also demonstrates my ability to correctly apply authority control as a means of standardizing names and titles as well as utilizing the correct standards to ensure that the surrogate gives as complete a description of its item as possible.
CONCLUSION
A well-organized collection is the basis on which most other library activities function. Reference services, research support, and collection management all rely on a collection that is cataloged and organized using consistent standards and methods. The discussion and evidence provided demonstrates my understanding and mastery of the importance of and reasoning behind employing specific classification and cataloging schema, as well as my ability to use them correctly.
References
Bolin, M. (2013). Week 6: Access points and authority control.
Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability. Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly.
Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Neal-Schuman.
Understanding Metadata. (2004). Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
Kristin Lehigh 