Definition of Competency or Understanding of Competency
The basic principles of organizing information and information retrieval (IR) such as aggregation, discrimination, and disambiguation, as well as the cataloging standards and practices that form the basis of bibliographic records used in a library catalog (for instance, being able to find a book by author, title, or subject), emerged in the late 19th century, and reflect the shared understandings and assumptions of that worldview (Bolin, 2016, p 4). The card catalog, central to the 20th century library system, went digital in the 1980s in the form of online catalogs made possible by a) machine-readable cataloging (MARC), and b) the ability to create, edit, and share MARC records via OCLC’s WorldCat database (Bolin, 2016, p 5).
The representation of a document in an information system is called “metadata” and is a foundational principle of IR (Weedman, 2008, p 116). Library cataloging is one kind of metadata (data about data) “that enables people to find and access information” (Bolin, 2018, p 143). Cataloging can be divided into two different types— descriptive cataloging, which deals with a what a resource is and who created it, and subject cataloging, which deals with a resource’s “aboutness.” (Bolin, 2018, p 149). Classification, like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) systems (Chan, 2007, p 320 & p 376) is “a single expression of a resource’s aboutness (Bolin, 2018, p 151). Metadata in these systems works with attributes of information (author, title, publisher, etcetera) and subject information to represent “aboutness” (Bolin, 2016, p 7). Aboutness in subject cataloging is largely determined through controlled vocabularies like The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)(Bolin, 2016, pp 87-88); controlled vocabularies use “particular and authorized terms” to “represent topics” (Bolin, 2018, pp 112-113) and thereby a enable users to find appropriate topics. Subject metadata aggregates information around a topic, using a combination of IR design features like natural language processing (algorithms), controlled vocabularies, classification schemas, or tagging (Bolin, 2008, p 116).
Organizing information, like that done in cataloging, require shared principles and standards, usually established and maintained by responsible organizations, like the American Library Association or the Library of Congress (Bolin, 2016, p 112). Cataloguers use shared cataloging codes like the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) and its (eventual) replacement Resource Description and Access (RDA) so that they can create and share information consistently, and other standards, like the “prescribed punctuation” of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD), get passed on through these shared encoded formats (Bolin, 2016, p 7). All cataloging standards (like MARC) are built on principles such as:
Understanding these emerging shared practices and standards is just as important as mastering those that define long-standing IR systems for both information professionals and organizations. The underlying principles for both established and emerging IR systems will likely remain the same, but because the information environment is continually in flux, it is of the essence for librarians and libraries to keep abreast of IR systems as they evolve over time, so as to remain relevant and connected.
Preparation to Understand Competency G: Coursework and Work Experience
I have been going into libraries since I was very young, and have long been acquainted with both the Dewey Decimal classification system (DDC) and the Library of Congress classification system (LCC). Working in and haunting bookstores for over 15 years has familiarized me with some of the data behind Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data (CIP) (often found on the title page verso of a book), and working in a large public library system for over ten years has helped me become more familiar with MARC records, which I have access to, and occasionally need to dive into in order to solve a circulation mystery. I have also visited our Selection and Order department and have a cursory understanding of how our cataloguers batch load in records from OCLC as well as hand catalog certain items. I also have plenty of experience using our online catalog and understand the various ways information may be retrieved within it. As a reference librarian of many years I am always interested in how information is organized, classified, and made searchable. I am always exploring databases and the controlled vocabularies and thesauri behind their functioning. I am always looking for better search engines and online means of accessing more and varied forms of information.
I learn a great deal about the principles and standards involved in organizing information, and metadata thinking from library colleagues, both at work and online. My class in Online Searching (INFO 244) broadened my understanding of library search and research methods. The ability to search is considerably strengthened the more one understands how and why IR systems are created, how they function, and how they are maintained, and vice-versa. Courses like Information Communities (INFO 200), Information Professions (INFO 204), and Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) provided me with the opportunity to explore some of the history behind how information professionals have organized information over time; the history I have taken in gives me a framework for understanding how and why emerging metadata schemas like RDF or encoding languages like XML might become more prevalent and influential in the near future. Finally, my Information Retrieval System Design class (INFO 202) was very helpful in showing me how controlled vocabularies develop, and how information retrieval systems like databases are built. More importantly INFO 202 showed me the principles, standards, and practices behind IR and metadata systems, and gave me the vocabulary to describe how the components in these systems might be working together.
I chose to present my evidence in roughly a chronological order because the cataloging I did for INFO 248 was an iterative process that had me building complex bibliographic records over time, and each exercise provided me with a) an understanding of how cataloging systems developed over time, and b) how and why that system is changing, and will likely change in the future. I therefore first present Descriptive Cataloging work I did (including developing a MARC record set and then creating Access Points and Authority Records for that set). I present the work I did with Subject Cataloging as it shows the further development (in quantity and quality) of my MARC records, and illustrates my deepening understanding of how and why such records are constructed and maintained. I end with the Management of Cataloging exercise because of the sheer number of records involved and because the exercise gave me the opportunity to explore all the myriad fields within a complex MARC record. My observations, discoveries, and questions that I put forth in this summary help illustrate my understanding of the organizing principles, standards, and practices for this competency.
Evidence
Descriptive Cataloging MARC Record Set and
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A3ea02ca5-fd3f-4dab-a9c6-64816b125c8d
One of my first exercises for my Beginning Cataloging and Classification class (INFO 248) involved me going into OCLC Connexion, and creating ten (10) bibliographic records (that is, descriptive cataloging), using MARC fields, for ten (10) non-fiction books. I created these records “from scratch,” meaning that, using a template I catalogued each book by hand rather than simply copy pre-existing records. Cataloguing these books required me to pay attention to numerous details such as proper ISBD punctuation, indicators that come after field tags (for instance the “4” in “14” after the tag 245 indicates that the title begins with article ‘The,’ meaning those three letters and a space), or to decide when fields ought to be retained or deleted. The data entry I performed here also meant diligently searching the texts for publishing dates, types of illustrations, whether a book was in a series, and other necessary information. This diligence also meant I needed to have an awareness of certain standards and conventions. For instance, I had to know that the 336, 337, and 338 fields were new RDA fields, and while I did not need to enter any information in these fields, they also needed to be retained.
Aside from my fastidiousness in accurately and succinctly filling in the MARC fields, I made several informed choices through the cataloging process. Two instances came up where I had to decide which publisher was the appropriate one to use. In one case, a single color added to black and white illustrations led me to do some online research into the 300 MARC sub-field to get clarification. There were two books (one involving a title & subtitle, the other about the illustrator) where I reasoned that deferring to RDA cataloging rules (e.g., enter the information exactly as it appears) was the prudent course. In one instance, regarding the location of a publisher, I could find no clear and distinct rule for the entry, and so made an informed decision based on available evidence. Overall this exercise helped me understand the basic principles, standards, and practices used in descriptive cataloging, in particular the creation of MARC records.
Access Points-Authority Control MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Aa89b88b8-7981-481f-a05e-c62ff297b223
Another exercise I performed for my INFO 248 cataloguing and classification class, in this one I took the ten MARC records I had already created and added in descriptive access points. I used the Library of Congress (LC) Name Authority file to search for the authorized form of name for the author in question (a MARC Name Authority Record) and add it into the fields of my records (the 100 field). I learned how to search for and find the one and only record for use for that author’s name. For each authority record I had to also find an associated authority record number (ARN). The search for proper authority files involved me in a measure of bibliographic detection work.
At least one author, a cultural critic, shared a name with a rather prolific scientist. I discovered that one author whose name was referenced in four different ways in the 7xx records; I had to sift through those alternatives before determining the preferred usage. Another author’s name led me to subfield code $q, which deals with the “fuller name” of an author, and to “WorldCat Identities,” where I determined that the record containing this longer name was the author for whom I was looking. Finally, for two other authors I was forced to do some online research in order to cross-check facts about them in order to determine if they were in fact the actual authors of the books in my records. This exercise helped me better understand the environment within which descriptive cataloging is performed. It became clear to me that large, committed, and responsible information organizations necessarily underpin the informational system that can establish standards and authority control.
LCC-DDC Exercise
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af02de43f-6c23-44fa-9f84-4801b268c765
This exercise for my INFO 248 cataloging and classification class helped familiarize me with using the Library of Congress (LCC) and Dewey Decimal (DDC) classification systems to classify three (3) specific items (books). For the DDC part of the exercise I went to OCLC’s “Classify” site and used various search terms in order to bring up subject headings that might accurately match my book. For instance, Geary’s book on metaphor came up with the DDC classification 428.1 (Metaphor). I then went to DDC summaries to determine the meaning for the main class number (the first three numbers before the decimal point), which in this case was 428 for Standard English Usage.
For the LOC part of the exercise I began on Classification Web and performed a similar keyword “aboutness” searches in an attempt to bring up classification lists, their attendant meanings, and the string of words (“breadcrumbs”) that attempt to describe the book. So, for instance, my metaphor book in LOC looked like: PE 1445.M4. English philology and language—Modern English—Language—Rhetoric. Style. Composition—Special parts of discourse—Figures and tropes—Special, A-Z—Metaphor. This exercise helped me not only understand how the DDC and LOC classifications are organized and structured online (as opposed to on the library shelf) but also how each classification correlates to the other, and how each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the addition of LCC and DDC information into the MARC records proved to me that sharing information enriches not only the aggregation of data, but also its retrieval.
LCSH MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Abce13d7a-02e0-4122-9e94-3671839f28b1
This INFO 248 exercise had me adding subject headings (meaning LOC 6xx fields) to my 15 MARC bibliographic records. For each record I chose the most accurate overall subject heading I could find, matched it to the item’s authority record number, and then wrote a single sentence annotation that summarized all of the subject headings for that particular book. This exercise showed me that, as wonderful as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are, they still in some way fail to entirely capture the “aboutness” of items, in this case books. Working through these 15 records and using the subject headings as my guide, I realized why there is a push within library cataloging, to move us towards a Resource Description Framework (RDF) metadata model, in part because there will be more input by users, and thereby there will more granularity to the descriptions in bibliographic records.
LCC-DDC MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A5017c922-ab68-4a0c-ad60-95cdcda1e771
In this exercise for my Beginning Classification and Cataloging class (INFO 248) I was tasked with adding subject headings (both LCC [050 field] and DDC [082 field]) to my 20 MARC bibliographic records. Searching by OCLC control number (garnered from previous exercises), I found records for my 20 books in the OCLC database and from those records copy and pasted an LCC and DDC subject heading into each of my bibliographic records, along with any 6xx subject fields.
I made a list of the 20 DDC numbers and the 20 LCC numbers I found, then searched Dewey Summaries and Classification Web to determine what each number meant, or how it is represented in each classification system. Once again, as in a previous exercise, I was able to choose appropriate subject headings in part by comparing descriptions across classification systems. This exercise helped me see how much more detailed and useful bibliographic records become when fields are combined from different classification systems, and again reaffirmed the power in combining data sets from multiple sources, especially when one can see relationships between them.
Management of Cataloging Exercise
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A2c5ceaee-9781-4640-92bc-95c14a6a6b04
and
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A1897ba64-40f7-4a0e-b457-56f00107ecfb
In many ways this exercise was the culminating project of my Beginning Cataloging and Classification course (INFO 248), as it involved looking at, and discussing the fixed and variable fields for over 50 MARC records. The second link provided above shows the detailed notes I took for each record, indicating observations and discoveries I made, as well as questions that arose. For instance, I note AACR2 and FAST headings in many records, find some Authority Record Numbers (ARNs), and wonder why I sometimes found fields out of numerical order. In the first link above I synthesize all my observing, discovering, and questioning of the 50 records. I begin by describing my process in going through the records and my general impressions, and then briefly summarize and encapsulate my findings for both the fixed and variable fields. For instance, in the fixed fields I highlight Date Replaced and Encoding level as fields that shed some light on how cataloging is accomplished. In the fixed fields, my main takeaway was understanding how truly international in scope the cataloging process was.
After one page of summary I spend another page going through all 50 MARC records at once, field-by-field, in order to give each individual field its due. For instance, I begin by explaining that early on I understood that the 040 field describes actions by various cataloging agencies, but it took me a long while to find (or notice) any that indicate descriptive conventions like RDA (e.g., $e rda). These writings, combined with my notes, show that I am capable of continual learning in the bibliographic record environment, understand many of the principles, standards, and practices that undergird bibliographic organization and IR generally (or know where to look to find that information), and know the cataloging process well enough to know when I do not know something.
Conclusion
I understand the basic principles, standards, and practices that underline information retrieval systems such as the cataloging and classification done by librarians. Constructing MARC records in an iterative fashion showed me that the sharing of these standards and practices requires the support and structure provided by dedicated information organizations (and their professional staff members), and that establishing authority control and proper standards cannot be accomplished by individual professionals without this broader framework in place. My work with LCC and DDC classification systems showed me that different subject cataloging systems enrich the whole information environment when that information is freely shared and allowed to combine within a communication format like MARC; “interoperability” is a shared principle that I can use whenever I am at working organizing information. While I saw the controlled vocabularies behind the LC subject headings as a thing of beauty, I also could not ignore its limited ability to help me describe the aboutness of the books in my MARC records; this experience further impressed upon on me how important multiple sources of data are when aggregating, discriminating, and disambiguating information. Moreover, the more detailed my records became from these multiple sources of data, the more it impressed upon me that the value in this resides in being able to clearly make out relationships between the entities in the records: this insight I will carry with me whenever I am collecting data for future retrieval by users. Finally, my writing and musings on the way cataloging is organized, shows that I am a continuous learner, and that I understand that while principles may well remain constant, standards and practices of the information environment (as well as the environment itself) are in flux and can eventually transform into new ways of organizing information. My writings show I am aware enough to know when I do not know, and that this is a proper orientation for working with metadata and IR systems.
References
Bolin, M.K. (2016). Beginning cataloging and classification. Retrieved from
https://michelleroeringeport.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/hptext-bolin.pdf
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In
Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Chan, L. M., & Salaba, A. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction. The Scarecrow
Press.
Scott, A. (2016). Information retrieval system design. Retrieved from
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A55ea8765-e0fb-491e-aec0-deddb7ba115c
Weedman, J. (2008). Information retrieval: Designing, querying, and evaluating information
systems. In Haycock, K, and Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The Portable MLIS: Insights from the Experts. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited
The basic principles of organizing information and information retrieval (IR) such as aggregation, discrimination, and disambiguation, as well as the cataloging standards and practices that form the basis of bibliographic records used in a library catalog (for instance, being able to find a book by author, title, or subject), emerged in the late 19th century, and reflect the shared understandings and assumptions of that worldview (Bolin, 2016, p 4). The card catalog, central to the 20th century library system, went digital in the 1980s in the form of online catalogs made possible by a) machine-readable cataloging (MARC), and b) the ability to create, edit, and share MARC records via OCLC’s WorldCat database (Bolin, 2016, p 5).
The representation of a document in an information system is called “metadata” and is a foundational principle of IR (Weedman, 2008, p 116). Library cataloging is one kind of metadata (data about data) “that enables people to find and access information” (Bolin, 2018, p 143). Cataloging can be divided into two different types— descriptive cataloging, which deals with a what a resource is and who created it, and subject cataloging, which deals with a resource’s “aboutness.” (Bolin, 2018, p 149). Classification, like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) systems (Chan, 2007, p 320 & p 376) is “a single expression of a resource’s aboutness (Bolin, 2018, p 151). Metadata in these systems works with attributes of information (author, title, publisher, etcetera) and subject information to represent “aboutness” (Bolin, 2016, p 7). Aboutness in subject cataloging is largely determined through controlled vocabularies like The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)(Bolin, 2016, pp 87-88); controlled vocabularies use “particular and authorized terms” to “represent topics” (Bolin, 2018, pp 112-113) and thereby a enable users to find appropriate topics. Subject metadata aggregates information around a topic, using a combination of IR design features like natural language processing (algorithms), controlled vocabularies, classification schemas, or tagging (Bolin, 2008, p 116).
Organizing information, like that done in cataloging, require shared principles and standards, usually established and maintained by responsible organizations, like the American Library Association or the Library of Congress (Bolin, 2016, p 112). Cataloguers use shared cataloging codes like the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) and its (eventual) replacement Resource Description and Access (RDA) so that they can create and share information consistently, and other standards, like the “prescribed punctuation” of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD), get passed on through these shared encoded formats (Bolin, 2016, p 7). All cataloging standards (like MARC) are built on principles such as:
- Location: finding a wanted author or title
- Collocation: aggregating the same author or similar works
- Interoperability: the flexibility of records that would allow them to be read and interpreted by any other system (Bolin, 2016, pp 8 & 22)
- Aggregation: gathering like materials together
- Discrimination: distinguishing materials that are unlike each other
- Disambiguation: clearing up ambiguity around similarly named materials, and
- The idea that metadata “must describe attributes of information” (Bolin, 2018, p 145).
Understanding these emerging shared practices and standards is just as important as mastering those that define long-standing IR systems for both information professionals and organizations. The underlying principles for both established and emerging IR systems will likely remain the same, but because the information environment is continually in flux, it is of the essence for librarians and libraries to keep abreast of IR systems as they evolve over time, so as to remain relevant and connected.
Preparation to Understand Competency G: Coursework and Work Experience
I have been going into libraries since I was very young, and have long been acquainted with both the Dewey Decimal classification system (DDC) and the Library of Congress classification system (LCC). Working in and haunting bookstores for over 15 years has familiarized me with some of the data behind Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data (CIP) (often found on the title page verso of a book), and working in a large public library system for over ten years has helped me become more familiar with MARC records, which I have access to, and occasionally need to dive into in order to solve a circulation mystery. I have also visited our Selection and Order department and have a cursory understanding of how our cataloguers batch load in records from OCLC as well as hand catalog certain items. I also have plenty of experience using our online catalog and understand the various ways information may be retrieved within it. As a reference librarian of many years I am always interested in how information is organized, classified, and made searchable. I am always exploring databases and the controlled vocabularies and thesauri behind their functioning. I am always looking for better search engines and online means of accessing more and varied forms of information.
I learn a great deal about the principles and standards involved in organizing information, and metadata thinking from library colleagues, both at work and online. My class in Online Searching (INFO 244) broadened my understanding of library search and research methods. The ability to search is considerably strengthened the more one understands how and why IR systems are created, how they function, and how they are maintained, and vice-versa. Courses like Information Communities (INFO 200), Information Professions (INFO 204), and Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) provided me with the opportunity to explore some of the history behind how information professionals have organized information over time; the history I have taken in gives me a framework for understanding how and why emerging metadata schemas like RDF or encoding languages like XML might become more prevalent and influential in the near future. Finally, my Information Retrieval System Design class (INFO 202) was very helpful in showing me how controlled vocabularies develop, and how information retrieval systems like databases are built. More importantly INFO 202 showed me the principles, standards, and practices behind IR and metadata systems, and gave me the vocabulary to describe how the components in these systems might be working together.
I chose to present my evidence in roughly a chronological order because the cataloging I did for INFO 248 was an iterative process that had me building complex bibliographic records over time, and each exercise provided me with a) an understanding of how cataloging systems developed over time, and b) how and why that system is changing, and will likely change in the future. I therefore first present Descriptive Cataloging work I did (including developing a MARC record set and then creating Access Points and Authority Records for that set). I present the work I did with Subject Cataloging as it shows the further development (in quantity and quality) of my MARC records, and illustrates my deepening understanding of how and why such records are constructed and maintained. I end with the Management of Cataloging exercise because of the sheer number of records involved and because the exercise gave me the opportunity to explore all the myriad fields within a complex MARC record. My observations, discoveries, and questions that I put forth in this summary help illustrate my understanding of the organizing principles, standards, and practices for this competency.
Evidence
Descriptive Cataloging MARC Record Set and
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A3ea02ca5-fd3f-4dab-a9c6-64816b125c8d
One of my first exercises for my Beginning Cataloging and Classification class (INFO 248) involved me going into OCLC Connexion, and creating ten (10) bibliographic records (that is, descriptive cataloging), using MARC fields, for ten (10) non-fiction books. I created these records “from scratch,” meaning that, using a template I catalogued each book by hand rather than simply copy pre-existing records. Cataloguing these books required me to pay attention to numerous details such as proper ISBD punctuation, indicators that come after field tags (for instance the “4” in “14” after the tag 245 indicates that the title begins with article ‘The,’ meaning those three letters and a space), or to decide when fields ought to be retained or deleted. The data entry I performed here also meant diligently searching the texts for publishing dates, types of illustrations, whether a book was in a series, and other necessary information. This diligence also meant I needed to have an awareness of certain standards and conventions. For instance, I had to know that the 336, 337, and 338 fields were new RDA fields, and while I did not need to enter any information in these fields, they also needed to be retained.
Aside from my fastidiousness in accurately and succinctly filling in the MARC fields, I made several informed choices through the cataloging process. Two instances came up where I had to decide which publisher was the appropriate one to use. In one case, a single color added to black and white illustrations led me to do some online research into the 300 MARC sub-field to get clarification. There were two books (one involving a title & subtitle, the other about the illustrator) where I reasoned that deferring to RDA cataloging rules (e.g., enter the information exactly as it appears) was the prudent course. In one instance, regarding the location of a publisher, I could find no clear and distinct rule for the entry, and so made an informed decision based on available evidence. Overall this exercise helped me understand the basic principles, standards, and practices used in descriptive cataloging, in particular the creation of MARC records.
Access Points-Authority Control MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Aa89b88b8-7981-481f-a05e-c62ff297b223
Another exercise I performed for my INFO 248 cataloguing and classification class, in this one I took the ten MARC records I had already created and added in descriptive access points. I used the Library of Congress (LC) Name Authority file to search for the authorized form of name for the author in question (a MARC Name Authority Record) and add it into the fields of my records (the 100 field). I learned how to search for and find the one and only record for use for that author’s name. For each authority record I had to also find an associated authority record number (ARN). The search for proper authority files involved me in a measure of bibliographic detection work.
At least one author, a cultural critic, shared a name with a rather prolific scientist. I discovered that one author whose name was referenced in four different ways in the 7xx records; I had to sift through those alternatives before determining the preferred usage. Another author’s name led me to subfield code $q, which deals with the “fuller name” of an author, and to “WorldCat Identities,” where I determined that the record containing this longer name was the author for whom I was looking. Finally, for two other authors I was forced to do some online research in order to cross-check facts about them in order to determine if they were in fact the actual authors of the books in my records. This exercise helped me better understand the environment within which descriptive cataloging is performed. It became clear to me that large, committed, and responsible information organizations necessarily underpin the informational system that can establish standards and authority control.
LCC-DDC Exercise
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af02de43f-6c23-44fa-9f84-4801b268c765
This exercise for my INFO 248 cataloging and classification class helped familiarize me with using the Library of Congress (LCC) and Dewey Decimal (DDC) classification systems to classify three (3) specific items (books). For the DDC part of the exercise I went to OCLC’s “Classify” site and used various search terms in order to bring up subject headings that might accurately match my book. For instance, Geary’s book on metaphor came up with the DDC classification 428.1 (Metaphor). I then went to DDC summaries to determine the meaning for the main class number (the first three numbers before the decimal point), which in this case was 428 for Standard English Usage.
For the LOC part of the exercise I began on Classification Web and performed a similar keyword “aboutness” searches in an attempt to bring up classification lists, their attendant meanings, and the string of words (“breadcrumbs”) that attempt to describe the book. So, for instance, my metaphor book in LOC looked like: PE 1445.M4. English philology and language—Modern English—Language—Rhetoric. Style. Composition—Special parts of discourse—Figures and tropes—Special, A-Z—Metaphor. This exercise helped me not only understand how the DDC and LOC classifications are organized and structured online (as opposed to on the library shelf) but also how each classification correlates to the other, and how each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the addition of LCC and DDC information into the MARC records proved to me that sharing information enriches not only the aggregation of data, but also its retrieval.
LCSH MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Abce13d7a-02e0-4122-9e94-3671839f28b1
This INFO 248 exercise had me adding subject headings (meaning LOC 6xx fields) to my 15 MARC bibliographic records. For each record I chose the most accurate overall subject heading I could find, matched it to the item’s authority record number, and then wrote a single sentence annotation that summarized all of the subject headings for that particular book. This exercise showed me that, as wonderful as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are, they still in some way fail to entirely capture the “aboutness” of items, in this case books. Working through these 15 records and using the subject headings as my guide, I realized why there is a push within library cataloging, to move us towards a Resource Description Framework (RDF) metadata model, in part because there will be more input by users, and thereby there will more granularity to the descriptions in bibliographic records.
LCC-DDC MARC Record Set
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A5017c922-ab68-4a0c-ad60-95cdcda1e771
In this exercise for my Beginning Classification and Cataloging class (INFO 248) I was tasked with adding subject headings (both LCC [050 field] and DDC [082 field]) to my 20 MARC bibliographic records. Searching by OCLC control number (garnered from previous exercises), I found records for my 20 books in the OCLC database and from those records copy and pasted an LCC and DDC subject heading into each of my bibliographic records, along with any 6xx subject fields.
I made a list of the 20 DDC numbers and the 20 LCC numbers I found, then searched Dewey Summaries and Classification Web to determine what each number meant, or how it is represented in each classification system. Once again, as in a previous exercise, I was able to choose appropriate subject headings in part by comparing descriptions across classification systems. This exercise helped me see how much more detailed and useful bibliographic records become when fields are combined from different classification systems, and again reaffirmed the power in combining data sets from multiple sources, especially when one can see relationships between them.
Management of Cataloging Exercise
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A2c5ceaee-9781-4640-92bc-95c14a6a6b04
and
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A1897ba64-40f7-4a0e-b457-56f00107ecfb
In many ways this exercise was the culminating project of my Beginning Cataloging and Classification course (INFO 248), as it involved looking at, and discussing the fixed and variable fields for over 50 MARC records. The second link provided above shows the detailed notes I took for each record, indicating observations and discoveries I made, as well as questions that arose. For instance, I note AACR2 and FAST headings in many records, find some Authority Record Numbers (ARNs), and wonder why I sometimes found fields out of numerical order. In the first link above I synthesize all my observing, discovering, and questioning of the 50 records. I begin by describing my process in going through the records and my general impressions, and then briefly summarize and encapsulate my findings for both the fixed and variable fields. For instance, in the fixed fields I highlight Date Replaced and Encoding level as fields that shed some light on how cataloging is accomplished. In the fixed fields, my main takeaway was understanding how truly international in scope the cataloging process was.
After one page of summary I spend another page going through all 50 MARC records at once, field-by-field, in order to give each individual field its due. For instance, I begin by explaining that early on I understood that the 040 field describes actions by various cataloging agencies, but it took me a long while to find (or notice) any that indicate descriptive conventions like RDA (e.g., $e rda). These writings, combined with my notes, show that I am capable of continual learning in the bibliographic record environment, understand many of the principles, standards, and practices that undergird bibliographic organization and IR generally (or know where to look to find that information), and know the cataloging process well enough to know when I do not know something.
Conclusion
I understand the basic principles, standards, and practices that underline information retrieval systems such as the cataloging and classification done by librarians. Constructing MARC records in an iterative fashion showed me that the sharing of these standards and practices requires the support and structure provided by dedicated information organizations (and their professional staff members), and that establishing authority control and proper standards cannot be accomplished by individual professionals without this broader framework in place. My work with LCC and DDC classification systems showed me that different subject cataloging systems enrich the whole information environment when that information is freely shared and allowed to combine within a communication format like MARC; “interoperability” is a shared principle that I can use whenever I am at working organizing information. While I saw the controlled vocabularies behind the LC subject headings as a thing of beauty, I also could not ignore its limited ability to help me describe the aboutness of the books in my MARC records; this experience further impressed upon on me how important multiple sources of data are when aggregating, discriminating, and disambiguating information. Moreover, the more detailed my records became from these multiple sources of data, the more it impressed upon me that the value in this resides in being able to clearly make out relationships between the entities in the records: this insight I will carry with me whenever I am collecting data for future retrieval by users. Finally, my writing and musings on the way cataloging is organized, shows that I am a continuous learner, and that I understand that while principles may well remain constant, standards and practices of the information environment (as well as the environment itself) are in flux and can eventually transform into new ways of organizing information. My writings show I am aware enough to know when I do not know, and that this is a proper orientation for working with metadata and IR systems.
References
Bolin, M.K. (2016). Beginning cataloging and classification. Retrieved from
https://michelleroeringeport.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/hptext-bolin.pdf
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In
Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Chan, L. M., & Salaba, A. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction. The Scarecrow
Press.
Scott, A. (2016). Information retrieval system design. Retrieved from
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A55ea8765-e0fb-491e-aec0-deddb7ba115c
Weedman, J. (2008). Information retrieval: Designing, querying, and evaluating information
systems. In Haycock, K, and Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The Portable MLIS: Insights from the Experts. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited