Comp G: Cataloging

understand the system of standards and methods used to control and create information structures and apply basic principles involved in the organization and representation of knowledge;

 

Introduction

Classification and cataloguing are core concepts in the library and information science fields.  No matter how marvelous and wonderful and rare and valuable our material or information may be, if we can’t find it when we need it, it might as well not exist.  As Arlene Taylor says, “a book may be published or a Web site may be established, but if no one knows of its existence except the person(s) involved in its creation it will be of no informational use to anyone (2008, as cited in Haycock, p 99).”

Taylor also surmises that, “a basic drive in humans seems to be to organize (Taylor, 2008, p. 98).”  Our learning is based on our ability to analyze and organize the data and information we encounter.  Organization and classification also makes the process of locating specific information, or representations of information, possible, and more rapid and efficient.  While the first documented rules for classifying written matter (books) were written by Anthony Panizzi in 1841, the ancient scrolls in the Library at Alexandria were probably arranged in some sort of order.  It’s far quicker and easier for a user to skim a group of ten or twenty similar items for the one he or she wants, than to investigate a pile of one hundred or one thousand.  If materials can be sorted in some way, the number of items to be searched may be reduced to a manageable number. 

For the books, tapes, CDs, serials, business records, etc. within the library and information science fields, classifying and cataloging is critical to successful retrieval and use of those materials.  Taylor (2008, p. 99) suggests the term, “information resources” to encompass all of these -- in fact, any medium which can/does convey information.

Libraries, archives, and records management departments each design and create their own information structures to manage and organize their information resources.  As in other aspects of these fields, these classification systems have similarities as well as differences.  They all must determine and assign information to describe and disambiguate the information resource, generally called “metadata.”  How they use the metadata, categorize that metadata, and make it available to users depends on the needs of each group.  The systems and standards used to control and create these information structures as used in business organizations may vary from those used in libraries, but they are equally critical to successful organization and retrieval of the items.

An information structure will vary in its complexity, according to the needs of the repository using it.  A shelf of books in a classroom may not need a catalog, index, or bibliography at all; everyone remembers what’s there.  That school’s library may use the Dewey Decimal system of classification, which divides all non-fiction subjects into categories represented by a number between 000 and 1000, then sorts fiction by author’s surname, alphabetically.  A university library may base their system on that of the Library of Congress. 

 

The purpose of cataloging or classifying is to describe each item in such a way that 1) similar items can be grouped together, whether they’re written by the same person, about the same topic, or have the same title (different editions), 2) each item is sufficiently described for a user can know it is the item he or she is searching for. and 3), enough information is given to enable the user to evaluate the item, to determine if it will meet his or her needs, and meet those needs better than any similar item.  While classification serves to collocate or bring like items together, it also must describe each item in such a way that it can be disambiguated, or distinguished from other similar items.  Two books with the same title and author may have been published at different times, and have different content.  A user needs to be able to ascertain which book is which, and which may be the one he or she needs.

Cataloging first serves to describe an item according to accepted rules, principles, and guidelines, then uses that description to provide access points, so users may find the item in a catalogue, then on a shelf.  These access points traditionally include author, subject, title, and specific descriptive terms.  Archives and records management departments may assign different names to similar fields (“creator,” “department,” “client,” etc.)

Because the conversion from paper catalog cards to electronic catalogs means we are no longer limited to the size of an individual card, or whether the wooden cabinet can hold all the cards we’d want, many more access points can be created.  Instead of choosing the two or three most predominant subjects, a cataloger can assign as many as he or she thinks would be used by patrons/researchers.  In addition to providing a description and metadata, a catalog can also specify the actual location of the information resource, whether on a library shelf, in an electronic file folder, in a subscription database or on a certain web page.

Cataloging also serves to provide a road map; a means by which users can search for their information resources efficiently.  By organizing the catalog in a predictable and logical manner, users can navigate through it with minimal discouragement.

The challenge of any information structure, and to those who design and populate it, is anticipating which search terms a user might attempt as access points.  Since it’s not possible to anticipate every permutation of an author’s name (particularly if he or she has used different names at different times, or has a pseudonym), and since no list would be large enough to include every possible subject, tools such as controlled vocabularies, authority files, and subject lists have been established.  These specify which version or subject is the “preferred” version, and all entries will use that version.  The authority files might refer users to the correct version, or a user might need to explore to find it.  They also reduce the possibility that an individual cataloger might classify an item according to an uncommon version of a search field, thus rendering that item much less likely to be found when needed.

 

Any classification system must start with agreement over how items will be classified – what the rules will be.  How should the title be stated?  What if there are parallel titles?  What if there is no title?  Without agreement as to how each situation should be handled, both cataloguers and users would have no idea how to work with the classification system.  There are various sets of rules for descriptive cataloging, including the AACR2, Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, in its various revisions, and the ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description).  These rules prescribe how to classify the description, name/author and title for access.  However, they do not deal extensively with rules for subject access, which is provided by the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH).

The Library of Congress Classification system uses both a Library of Congress-derived call number, based on subject, followed by a “Cutter number,” focusing on a specific item, and enabling it to be disambiguated from similar items, and to differentiate call numbers.  An Library of Congress call number also includes the year of publication.

The Dewey Decimal Classification system begins with a three-digit number between 000 and 1000, then adds additional digits after the decimal point to successively narrow the subject matter as much as possible.  A Cutter number follows the decimal number, to specify the author.

 

In the mid-20th century, as computers began to evolve and become useful, the MARC system of encoding classification information was created to handle electronic (computer-readable) records.  It has evolved (MARC21), and other systems have been created with specific purposes, such as EAD (Encoded Archival Description), used for archival finding aids, and MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema), which translates MARC into XML language.

 

Evidence

For this competency, I chose some examples of my work actually cataloging or classifying, and some topical discussion posts I wrote. Links within the prose will open in new tabs/windows.

 

Evidence #1 - 248 Cataloging Project

My first evidence is my final project from LIBR 248: Beginning Cataloging.  For eight specific items/books, we were required to fully complete blank MARC forms, including both descriptive and subject cataloguing, both the LC and Dewey classification numbers, and other information.  We were permitted (but not required) to work in teams, and we were encouraged to include an essay explaining some of our decisions or thought processes.

As part of a team of three, I worked on my own to complete the forms, determining the above information as well as a main entry, access name, added title entries if appropriate, and the appropriate LC Subject Headings.  I also created a shelf list, putting the eight items in correct shelf order.  Once we’d done our individual work, we compared and discussed our results, then adjusted the information until we agreed on each item.  (As a team, we were required to submit a single file, and would each receive the exact same grade.)  The process of discussion was as valuable to me as the initial research, because several times, we had found different results for different reasons.  We learned from each other as well as from the curriculum.

This project tested everything I’d learned over the course of the semester.  We received an “A,” demonstrating that I did indeed learn the theories and means to control and create information structures such as a cataloging record, and to understand how classification theories and systems function.

 

Evidence #2 - 284 Online Digital Collection – CONTENTdm

http://cdm15762.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p15762coll28

(Click on any image title to view metadata and a larger image)

My second evidence is my final project from LIBR 284:  Digitization.  We were required to create, populate, and incorporate metadata into an online digital collection, including at least fifteen digital objects, all linked to an overarching theme of our choosing.  We were expected to use OCLC’s CONTENTdm software, and to learn it sufficiently to do the work needed.  We were particularly instructed to pay attention to the “Is Relation Of” field, since it would enable us to establish and highlight the coherency of our collection and its overarching theme.

I chose several photographs from my personal collection of genealogy photographs, including two images taken at the same photographer session, but posed differently.  (One is held by a family member in New York, the other was in the possession of a lost cousin in France.)  The professor commented specifically on my use of the “Is Relation Of” field for these two images, saying, “Good use of "IsVersionOf" in Relation; good mix of content (img and ms); great job overall (Farr, E.  personal communication, May 27, 2011).”

In this project, I demonstrated my proficiency with a specific cataloging/classification software, my understanding of how to organize and represent knowledge, and my ability to apply these principles to a real-world situation.

 

Evidence #3 - 257 Discussion Unit 4

My third evidence is a group of two questions asked in my LIBR 257: Records Management class.  These questions relate to whether indexes are truly needed for subject filing, and whether traditional paper-based systems can be applied to electronic records.

The first question asked us to analyze whether an actual index was always required in record management systems.  As the classification component of such a system, one might think that yes, an index is always required.  I argued that having an actual written index for a small RM system might be unneeded, because the number of items in the collection is small, and/or the number of users who need to access those files is few.  However, once either of those conditions changes, an index, as a visible classification system, provides the access points and equivalent of call numbers or authority lists (file folders/drawers/cabinet numbers, and name used for filing.)

The second question asked if paper-based systems could/would be relevant to electronic records.  I argued that while paper-based systems will continue to be used for the foreseeable future, electronic record-keeping will become more common, and electronic metadata more and more critical.  This commentary also points out that even though I or another information professional may fully understand how to design systems to capture metadata and promote retrieval, we cannot control fellow users who may balk at doing their own cataloging or classifying.

These evidences demonstrate that the concepts of standards and methods used to control and create information structures apply to many facets of the Library and Information Science fields, and that I understand these constructs, and can apply these basic principles to organizing and representing knowledge in other areas besides traditional libraries.

 

Conclusion

Without a working system to classify and organize information and other representations of knowledge, retrieval of that information by users may be unsuccessful or time-consuming.  Understanding how these systems function and are designed is critical to taking full advantage of their ability to both collocate and disambiguate the items in a collection.  Without that understanding, items may not be fully represented in all the areas by which they might be accessed by users, or may not be findable at all.  Whether classified by subject via the Library of Congress Subject Headings and then by the Library of Congress Classification system, or organized by a digital content manager such as CONTENTdm, including prescribed metadata, or categorized via a records management software system for swift retrieval as needed, the standards and methods used to control and create information structures serve the purpose to, as Taylor so succinctly stated, “We organize because we need to retrieve (Taylor, 2008, p. 98).”  The included evidences demonstrate that I have mastered these concepts for many fields with the information science fields, and understand both the concepts and the application of their principles.

 

References:

Taylor, A., (2008).  Organization and representation of information/knowledge.  In K. Haycock & B. Sheldon (Eds.), The Portable MLIS:  Insights from the experts, pp. 87-97).  Connecticut, Libraries Unlimited.

 

Evidence for Competency G

(each link will open in a new tab or window)

Evidence 1 - 248 Cataloging Project

Evidence 2 - 284 Online Digital Collection – CONTENTdm

Evidence 3 - 257 Discussion Unit 4