A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  J  K  L  M  N  O

Cataloging

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.

Introduction

Organization is an essential requirement for easy retrieval of information. Theodora Hodges and Lois Mai Chan begin their chapter on subject cataloging principles with an excellent, succinct description: “Ever since libraries have existed, those in charge of them have tried to make it possible for the people who use them to select and retrieve from their collections items that are relevant to their queries” (157). Over time, library organization has developed into a vast system of classification and cataloguing. Libraries use controlled vocabularies and metadata schemes based on international standards and guidelines. Established structures and standards allow data to be shared across systems and repositories, which decreases data loss and user frustration.

Classification

Classification is defined as “the process of organizing knowledge into some systematic order” (Hodges & Chan, 161). Traditional classification theory in libraries focused on stages of classes and subclasses connected by characteristics, or facets. This creates a tree-like structure of organization. Library classification typically uses bibliographic classifications (hierarchically arranged levels) starting with genre or subject, narrowed to sub-subjects, and finally sorted by author last name. The two major American library classification schemes are the Dewey Decimal System (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) (Hodges & Chan, 161-166). DDC is used primarily in public and school libraries; academic libraries usually use LCC. Classification schemes have three components: schedules (subjects listed systematically); notation (the code or classification number assigned to the object); and an alphabetical index of terms with their assigned schedules (Rowley & Hartley, 199-200). Classification schemes provide continuity between repositories; employees and users become familiar with the established systems, allowing for effective retrieval of information.

Controlled Vocabularies

Controlled vocabularies are approved search terms used as tags for collections. The primary search term listed on a finding aid should match the subject tied to the classification number used for the item. Adding other terms can narrow or broaden the scope of the collection and its accessibility in the database. Charles Ammi Cutter, when designing the concepts behind the LOC classification scheme, wrote that the terms used for controlled vocabularies are based on five principles: convenience to the public; uniform and unique headings; specific and direct entry; consistency and currency in terminology; and provision of cross-references (Hodges & Chan, 159). These standards make it easier for indexers to assign terms to identified concepts and easier for patrons to find what they need in the stacks. Controlled vocabularies include equivalent, hierarchical, and associative relationships, which give users an understanding of the relationships between the terms, including broader, narrower, and related terms.  Library of Congress (LOC) Subject Headings are used in repositories that rely on LCC, while Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) Classification represents its own controlled vocabulary. Folklore repositories use the American Folklore Society Ethnographic Thesaurus (AFSET). There are many thesauri examples used across disciplines to organize information for later retrieval.

Cataloging

Classification and controlled vocabularies determine the organization of all the collections. Cataloging determines the organization of the collection itself, in the finding aid and physically. Cataloging is defined as “adding value to information resources through enhancing accessibility in various ways” (Sapanaro & Evans, 126). Cataloging is labor intensive so standards have been developed to assist the fluency of the process. Digital formats replaced the card catalog but digital preservation of these records is still a labor intensive job, especially with constant changes in technology (Sapanaro & Evans, 126-128). Libraries developed coding standards that ease the burden when data needs to be migrated into other systems. LOC developed Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC), which is defined as “tagging [that] is [a] variety of codes, usually called tags, indicators, and delimiters, to signal to a computer that a certain type of information is following the code so that it can format it correctly and allow proper searching” (Kuntz). MARC is written in XML (Extensible Markup Language); this programming language allows the tags used to be defined based on need, unlike HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), which has predefined tags that are used for website development (Miller, 149-150).

Metadata

Metadata can be created based on MARC or with other XML structures like Dublin Core, MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema), and RDA (Resource Description and Access). Required elements are often established with rules. For example, archivists typically rely on archival standards to create finding aids; these standards are outlined in Describing Archives: An Archives Standard (DACS), which outlines rules for writing finding aids in Encoded Archival Description (EAD), another XML structure. There is a large variety of possible metadata schemes to use so repositories must make educated decisions on which scheme is most relevant to their need. The standards published by professional organizations will help librarians stay organized across repositories, especially in the digital realm. These structures can be cross walked, which allows for elements to be transferred to a different structure (like EAD to MARC or MODS to RDA), either manually or with programming developed for this task (Miller, 155-160).

Evidence

The following evidence reflects my awareness and achievements towards accomplishing goals related to organizing information by using classification, controlled vocabularies, cataloging systems, and metadata schemas.

Evidence A: Thesaurus Construction

INFO247 Vocabulary Design

This group project for INFO247 Vocabulary Design required us to work through a thesaurus construction following the steps of a five-phase project that includes domain analysis, term extraction, facet analysis, relationship analysis, and final term selection. The group chose the hobbyist domain of amateur astrologers and term extraction was based on research into hobbyist and official astrology sources. The group constructed a classified index with a faceted structure based on categorical analysis of terms. The terms were then analyzed and labeled based on equivalence (USE/UF), hierarchical (BT/NT), and associative (RT) relationships. Final terms were then chosen to be presented in the thesaurus. For this group assignment, we met on Zoom while co-editing a Google Doc. Each member added sources and terms and effectively edited the thesaurus to a workable document. I pulled the collected terms into Microsoft Word and created a final document for submission.

Amateur Astrology Thesaurus

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/sarahfisherportfolio/files/2022/03/Group-7-Final-INFO247.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]

Evidence B: MARC Record Set

INFO248 Cataloguing and Classification

This assignment for INFO248 Cataloguing and Classification is the cumulation of four assignments completed during the term. For this assignment, I created twenty full MARC records for books that I own using OCLC Connexion. For the Descriptive Cataloging MARC Record Set (1), I assembled five print monographs (books, but no literature allowed) and created MARC descriptors for each book, including 040 (cataloging source), 049 (local holdings), 245 (title), 250 (edition), 264 (publication information), 300 (physical description), 336 (content), 337 (media), 338 (carrier), 490 (series), 500 (general note), and 504 (bibliography). For the Access Points Authority Control MARC Record Set (2), I added five books to the previous record set, with all the above information. Using OCLC Connexion, I found the Name Authority file for each author, whom I then added to the record set for each related book under descriptors 100 (primary author), 110 (primary corporate author), 700 (secondary author), and 710 (secondary corporate author). For the LCSH MARC Record Set (3), I added five more books with all the above information. I then searched OCLC Connexion for the LC subject headings connected to each book and added the following subject descriptors to each record: 600 (persons), 610 (organizations), 650 (topics), and 651 (geographic). The LCC-DCC MARC Record Set (4) seen below, added five more books with all of the above information. This final step adds the DDC and LCC classification numbers for each book, using OCLC Connexion again to determine the identifier to be entered into the descriptors 082 (DDC) and 050 (LCC).

LCC-DCC MARC Record Set

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/sarahfisherportfolio/files/2022/02/Fisher-INFO248-LCC-DCC-MARC-Record-Set.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]

Evidence C: Cataloguing Finding Aid

INFO284 Seminar in Archives and Records Management: Managing Photographic Collections

This assignment is the final step of a three-pronged task for INFO284 Seminar in Archives and Records Management: Managing Photographic Collections. The class was given digital copies of 525 images (stereoscopes) in no particular order with the assigned task of first creating a processing plan that outlines a proposed arrangement and process for writing a finding aid. The second task involved writing the finding aid for the stereo cards based on DACS. This finding aid includes identity elements, content and structure, elements, access points, a container list, and justification for organization. The final step, seen in the finding aid below, includes most of the elements from assignment two plus item level descriptions for fifteen of the stereo cards.

The Maxwell Franklin Stereograph Collection Finding Aid

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/sarahfisherportfolio/files/2022/02/Fisher-284-Cataloging-Finding-Aid.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]

Evidence D: Finding Aid on ArchivesSpace

Folklore Archivist Collection Coordinator, RVMA, UO

At work, a primary task is creating, updating, migrating, and preserving the data in collection finding aids. Below is a screenshot and link to a finding aid that I created on ArchivesSpace. This finding aid was available on LOC as a downloadable MARC XML file. I uploaded the MARC file into the ArchivesSpace converter, which uploads the finding aid into the repository system. I can then download the finding aid as an EAD or MARC file, if needed. Not all descriptors transfer perfectly so the new record needs to be analyzed for completeness and accuracy. Following this process speeds up time when creating new finding aids for published works.

Finding Aid

Conclusion

Learning standards, coding, and cross walking has increased my work productivity in impressive ways. I encourage all library employees to learn these skills; it will strengthen their knowledge, experience, ability, and productivity.

References

Hodges, T. L. & Chan, L. M. “Subject Cataloging Principles and Systems.” Information Retrieval System Design: Principles & Practice, V. Tucker, editor, edition 6.0. Academic Pub, 2019. 156-168.

Kuntz, B. “Marc Tagging.” Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu/~wkuntz/marc_tagging.html.

Miller, S. Metadata for Digital Collections: A How-to-do-it Manual. Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2011.

Rowley, J. & Hartley, R. “Classification and order.” Information Retrieval System Design: Principles & Practice, V. Tucker, editor, edition 6.0. Academic Pub, 2019. 195-204.

Saponaro, M.Z.; & Evans, G.E. Collection management basics, 7th edition. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2019.