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.
STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY
Information organization—which encompasses cataloging and classification—serves to systematically describe key attributes of individual documents, to place them within a larger organizational framework, and to identify relationships between materials via controlled vocabularies and encoding standards (Joudrey, 2017, p. 743). Within this context, individual materials are described by metadata: “data about data,” which depicts attributes of form, authorship, and content (Bolin, 2022, p. 166). In turn, pieces of metadata are arranged within a larger record, or surrogate, which represents that document within the larger organizational system (Bolin, 2016; Joudrey, 2017). Whether one is searching for materials within a library’s discovery tool, locating a document indicated within a finding aid, seeking a specific document according to its call number, or engaging in unstructured browsing of like materials on a library shelf of interest, all these activities are enabled by competent information organization.
Cataloging is the act of creating records for materials by way of metadata. While card catalogs long formed the basis of information organization—and continue to represent libraries within popular culture—networking efforts between information organizations have since demanded more collaborative, mechanized cataloging systems. As such, the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) format—developed by the Library of Congress (LOC) in the 1960s—has steadily achieved status as an encoding standard for catalogs worldwide, and enables practices of cooperative cataloging and copy cataloging for the sake of collaboration and efficiency (McCallum, 2017). Within individual libraries, MARC records are entered into an internal database, known as an integrated library system (ILS) and attached to user-facing records within an online public access catalog (OPAC) (Joudrey, 2017, p. 725). On a larger scale, library consortia often develop union catalogs which combine the holdings of individual collections; OCLC offers the most prominent example, as it aggregates the collections of over 25,000 member libraries, provides access to MARC records for copy cataloging, and offers a rich user interface via the WorldCat OPAC (Bolin, 2016, p. 5).
MARC records contain a series of numbered, designated fields, which can be delimited as needed. Individual fields contain two core types of information: descriptive data and subject data. Descriptive data includes the title of a given document, its format, the person(s) and/or organizations responsible for its authorship and publication, its year and location of origin, and its physical attributes, while subject data concerns the “aboutness” of a given document (Bolin, 2016; Joudrey, 2017). Dublin Core —an alternative framework built upon MARC—promotes a less technical, more accessible approach to original cataloging, and contains a total of 15 fields which can be applied as needed to convey descriptive and subject data (Weibel, 2017).
Descriptive data standards in MARC are set in part by Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD): frameworks initiated in 1998 and 1999 respectively, by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) (Bolin, 2016, p. 10). FRBR functions to establish relationships between components within a given record, as well as relationships between records within the larger organizational system. The framework mandates that individual records depict their corresponding document’s identity at multiple levels of granularity: the work (e.g., “Othello”), the expression (e.g., the 1951 Orson Welles film), and the manifestation (e.g., the initial U.S. release in DVD format) (pp. 20-21). Other entities mandated by FRBR include people and organizations of authorship, and subject descriptions (p. 53). FRAD ensures the depiction of relationships between FRBR entries by mandating the use of access points: controlled terms which promote consistency within, and across, records, and which are implemented via authority control (pp. 36-37). FRBR and FRAD frameworks are overseen by LOC via Resource Description and Access (RDA): a set of standards for MARC record creation, implemented in 2013 and adapted from Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) as depicted in the preceding AACR2 standards.
Bearing similarity to notions of authority control within descriptive data, standardization of subject data is ensured via use of controlled subject headings and call numbers within classification systems. Classification is an important component of information organization, which facilitates the systematic, hierarchical arrangement of specific disciplines and topics, to enable consistent cataloging, shelving, and navigability of collections.
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) are prominent classification systems within library settings. DDC’s more straightforward, generalist perspective lends itself to use in school libraries and small to midsize public library systems, while LCC’s broader, deeper structure and more specialized approach to subjects explains its frequent application in academic and research library settings (Chan & Hodges, 2017, p. 2847). Both DDC and LCC are enumerative systems, meaning that their structures were arranged at the outset, and that subsequent changes—initiated to reflect shifting and emerging knowledge—have taken place within their larger organizational contexts (Beightol, 2017, p. 962).
Structurally, both DDC and LCC list subjects at their most basic level in the form of classes (e.g., “social sciences”), each of which contain multiple levels of subsections that progressively convey more detail. DDC begins with 10 classes, each of which are divided into 10 divisions, which are subsequently divided into 10 sections (Mitchell & Vizine-Goetz, 2017, p. 1256). Once a given document is classified on the section level under DDC—comprising the first three digits of its call number—six supplementary tables enable further specificity of classification, as reflected within numbers after a decimal point (p. 1257). LCC begins with 21 classes, which contain varying numbers of subclasses, which are further divided into divisions; call numbers begin with letters which denote class and subclass, contain numbers conveying division, and allow for expansion via decimals as well as alphanumeric Cutter numbers, which describe authorship or further subject detail (Chan & Hodges, 2017, pp. 2849-2851). Including classification numbers as subject data within the cataloging process promotes the findability of corresponding materials within both physical and digital collections, given their resulting proximity to thematically similar materials.
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are also routinely supplied as subject data within cataloging applications; LCSH are arranged hierarchically, much like a thesaurus depicting a database’s controlled vocabulary, demonstrating such relationships as broader terms, narrower terms, and related terms (Young, 2017, pp. 2866-2869). Including LCSH within subject data—particularly multiple headings combined within faceted strings—offers a more comprehensive overview of subject content, and facilitates discovery via subject searching, which can prove more efficient and effective than keyword searching.
While MARC remains the de facto encoding standard for cataloging applications within LOC, OCLC, and beyond, shifting circumstances and expectations in the Internet age point to emerging standards. Although FRBR and FRAD promote linkage between records based on authority terms shared between their access points, linked data within a Web environment offers the possibility of establishing relationships much more intuitively and fluidly than discrete records or surrogates can (Bolin, 2016, p. 23). As such, LOC’s BIBFRAME (Bibliographic Framework) project has assumed the task of determining and implementing MARC’s eventual replacement, which will likely incorporate the Web-based Extensible Markup Language (XML) data format.
COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT
My competency in this area largely emerged throughout INFO 248 (Beginning Cataloging and Classification), during which I became familiar with the construction of records in MARC format. For various assignments, I created MARC records within OCLC Connexion, with the help of OCLC’s published bibliographic standards as well as LOC’s Classification Web resource. This course additionally familiarized me with DDC and LCC, largely through incorporation of classification numbers and LCSH as subject data within MARC records. As for other courses, INFO 202 (Information Retrieval System Design) introduced me to the principles of controlled vocabularies and vocabulary design which inform LCSH creation, and INFO 256 (Archives and Manuscripts) familiarized me with Dublin Core applications within archival practice, as well as the creation of finding aids to promote navigability of collections cataloged at the file or series level.
SELECTED ARTIFACTS
Through the following submissions, I aim to demonstrate my understanding of MARC and Dublin Core applications within cataloging, DDC, LCC, and LCSH classification systems, and vocabulary design.
INFO 248 - Assignment 4 copy.pdfThis exercise contains MARC records, created to catalog two books. The records were created in OCLC Connexion, and pasted into Microsoft Word for submission. Authority Record Numbers (ARNs) for access points in the 1xx, 6xx, 7xx, and 8xx fields are provided, for support of controlled terms applied in those fields. Additional information regarding DDC and LCC classification is provided, as well.
INFO 248 - LCC & DCC Schedules Exercise copy.pdfThis exercise aims to classify five focused research subjects according to DDC and LCC standards. By way of LOC’s Classification Web, each subject is assigned relevant keyword search terms, as well as classification numbers and subject headings in DDC and LCC terms. LCC classification numbers and LCSH are hyperlinked to their entries in Classification Web, which supports the data chosen in addition to reflecting the importance of linked data as promoted by RDA, FRBR, and FRAD.
INFO 256 - Cataloging Assignment - Taylor Kaplan copy.pdfThis exercise applies Dublin Core metadata standards to catalog a telegram, taken from a historic Oregon family’s papers. The record is intended for application within an (in this case, theoretical) archival finding aid, to be compiled by University of Oregon Libraries’ Special Collections department. Similarly to standard MARC records, fields depict descriptive and subject data, and subject headings are applied according to LCSH standards.
INFO 244 - Database Review - Taylor Kaplan copy.pdfWhile libraries typically catalog materials at the item level, archival collections are often cataloged at the collection, series, subseries, or folder level. The front matter of this finding aid was created to promote access to the Hinsdale Family Papers: correspondence, records, and ephemera pertaining to a historic Oregon family, and placed in the care of University of Oregon Libraries’ Special Collections department. While these papers are not formally cataloged, the description of their contents at the series and subseries level exemplifies a valuable method of information organization, for increased access to otherwise dense, unwieldy archival collections.
CONCLUSION
Information organization comprises the standards and processes by which the vast collections of libraries, archives, and other information centers are arranged, and thus made accessible in both physical and virtual settings. Classification facilitates thematic continuity in the arrangement of collections, in addition to enabling subject searches for given materials, while cataloging promotes findability of individual materials within the larger collections to which they belong. Additionally, utilization of access points and within cataloging practices—as ensured by RDA, FRBR, and FRAD frameworks—allows librarians and users alike to trace patterns and relationships between materials. These processes are crucial for the maintenance of coherent, navigable collections which demonstrate greater value than the sum of their component parts.
REFERENCES
Beghtol, C. (2017). Classification theory. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 958-973). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Bolin, M. K. (2016). Beginning cataloging and classification. San José State University.
Bolin, M. K. (2022). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In S. Hirsh (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 165-178). Rowman & Littlefield.
Chan, L. M., & Hodges, T. L. (2017). Library of Congress Classification (LCC). In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 2847-2855). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Joudrey, D. N. (2017). Cataloging. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 723-732). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
McCallum, S. H. (2017). Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC): 1975-2007. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 2980-2989). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Mitchell, J. S., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (2017). Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 1256-1266). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Weibel, S. L. (2017). Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI): A personal history. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 1390-1398). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Young, J. L. (2017). Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 2866-2878). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4