Competency G

“Each graduate of the Master of Library and Information Science program is able to… 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

Without the ability to organize information, information organizations would have a tough time finding information not only for its own use for but its users as well. We organize information so we can retrieve it later. We need information to help with decision making, problem solving, communication, entertainment, being good citizens, and to strengthen our professional capabilities (Rowley and Hartley, 2008).  There are many different ways to organize information, and each depends on a set of activities that must occur. The existence of information resources need to be identified, the information contained within those resources need to identified, a systematic method for pulling the information together into collections (in libraries, museums, archives, internet, etc.), lists of the resources using standard rules for citation need to be created,  metadata such as name, title, subject needs to be added to those resources, and a way provided to locate each information resource or a copy of it (Taylor, 2008).  Each of these steps are necessary and the tools we use will depend on how we organize the resources both physically and virtually.

As librarians, we benefit from the use of different organizational tools and schemes. As reference librarians, the organization helps us to efficiently find the information our patrons are asking for. We know how to navigate the structured arrangement of information whether physical or virtual (Hall-Ellis, 2015). And experience with classification systems, controlled vocabulary systems, cataloging, metadata, and even newer approaches for organizing information like folksonomies and tagging, allows us to create and insert new data into the organizational structure in a way that benefits all users of the information organization.

Classification Schemes

Classification provides a descriptive and explanatory framework for ideas and a structure of the relationships among the ideas” (Rubin, 2010, chapter 4). The use of a classification schemes helps to connect similar items and at the same time supply a method for identifying unique items.  Where physical materials are stored, a classification scheme helps when users are browsing because it places like or related items in close proximity to each other. Two of the most important classification systems are the Dewey Decimal classification system and the Library of Congress Classification.

Table 1 shows the top level of the Dewey decimal classification, which has been in use since 1876. This is a “hierarchical” classification system in which an item is assigned to a subclass within one of the main 10 classes based on the specificity of the item. So, for example, Rubin’s book (2010) on library science has a Dewey classification of 020/.0973. 020 is Library and Information Science subclass under Generalities. The rest of the number has to do with the location of the publisher. In general, the number becomes longer as the sub-classes become more specific.

Table 1: Dewey Decimal Classification System

Another classification scheme is the Library of Congress Classification. It was originally developed just to organize materials at the Library of Congress, but it was quickly adopted by other libraries, especially academic libraries. Table 2 shows the main classes in this classification scheme.  This scheme is alphanumeric and each class begins with up to 3 letters followed by up to 4 integers.  Letters represent sub-classes while decimals are used to expand classes.  Using Rubin’s book again, the Library of Congress classification is Z665.2. Looking at table 2, Z represents “Bibliography, Library Science, and General Information Resources” 665 is General Works and the rest is again, geographical information.

Table 2: Library of Congress Classification (LCC)

Controlled vocabulary systems

A controlled vocabulary is basically a list of preferred terms in the form of an authority file (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2007). Name authority files contain things like author names, corporations, geographical names, and artist names (Rowley and Hartley, 2008, chapter 12). This allows materials by the same author or specific geographical locations to be referred to in a consistent manner. For example, if my name were under Name authority control, everything I’ve written should carry one of “Vans, A. Marie” or “Vans, A.M.”, but not both for the records on each work. Subject authority control contain the subject headings that are used similar to Name Authority, but a conceptual analysis of a new item needs to be done in order to determine the best subject heading to use. There are several controlled vocabulary systems, many related to the domain in which they are embedded. The MeSH, or Medical Subject Heading is used for materials like medical journals and papers. For librarians, the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is more common for use with catalogs in libraries.

Cataloging Systems

When an item is identified for inclusion in a collection, the item must be entered into a system so it can be later retrieved. A description of the item needs to be generated that will be unique enough to discriminate it from other, similar resources and at the same time be able to collocate it with related items.  A description can serve as a surrogate for the item itself so that users don’t have to read the resource in its entirety before determining whether it is related to their information need or not. This description, or metadata can be in the form of standardized schemas like ISBD, AACR2R, Dublin Core and MODS (Taylor, 2008).   As part of creating descriptive records for an item, deciding on names or titles that can be used as access points for finding the resource in a catalog needs to be done. Before deciding on the exact description, a conceptual analysis on the resource is done which helps to determine the “aboutness” of an item. Once this is known, the use of controlled vocabularies, such as the Library of Congress Subject Heading (LCSH), helps the user locate, evaluate, and select materials related to their information needs (Rubin, 2010, chapter 4). If the collection also uses a classification system in which to help with collocating items both physically within the institution as well as items in a catalog, the conceptual analysis will help with determining the correct classification for the item.

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 general, metadata is data about data.  For libraries, metadata are resource descriptions. Whether an information item is physical or virtual, some type of metadata needs to be generated for it. Traditional cataloging is a form of metadata and there are standards for metadata creation and maintenance such as MARC (MAchine-Readable Cataloging) which are “standards for the representation and communication of bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form” (MARC21, 2007).  The rule set for setting fields in the MARC format, which is used with it, is the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2), a cataloging standard that was in use since 1967 until it was replaced by RDA (Resource Description & Access) in 2010.  Metadata is important because it helps for finding resources, identifying resources, and finding similar (or dissimilar) resources (NISO, 2004). It should be noted that the function of interoperability for metadata is of high importance. Not only should metadata elements be readable by humans, but also by multiple types of hardware and software systems.

With the rise in digital resources and the World Wide Web, new metadata standards have been developed. One of the most well-known is Dublin Core. The objective of Dublin Core is to provide a method for website owners to describe their resources within their own websites. The “elements” used to describe web-based documents can be implemented using embedded XML within the website. Other metadata standards include Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) for the electronic version of printed texts; the XML-based Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) for describing complex digital library components; Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) which is based on MARC; the Encoded Archival Description (EAD) for finding longer resource descriptions than that typically found in other metadata elements.  In addition there are other standards efforts for metadata that describe non-text digital objects such as images (MPEG Multimedia Metadata) and datasets (Federal Geographic Data Committee and Data Documentation Initiative (DDI).  Whatever the actual implementation of these metadata standards look like, the main reason metadata is important is the ability to search and retrieve resources using standard data fields across different systems.

Folksonomies

A folksonomy is uncontrolled vocabulary that is normally generated by the users of the system where the vocabulary is used. For example, on Flickr.com, when a photograph is added to the website, the content owner may tag that content with words they feel describe it. Depending on the application, other users may also add tags to the content. Over time, the tags most commonly used become the folksonomy (Rowley and Hartley, 2008). Amazon.com is another website that allows user-supplied tags for all of its content. Tags may be suggested to users based on those that have already been applied, so it becomes possible for a subset of tags to describe the item. There is some argument on whether folksonomies really help with organizing information, but one thing that is true about them is that, for the users in the community, the tags will most likely reflect the terminology with which they are most familiar and one could argue that this in itself is useful.

Coursework & Work Experience

I have taken several courses during my MLIS degree that have prepared me for understanding and using this competency. INFO-200 introduced me to the concepts of classification and controlled vocabularies. In INFO-202 and INFO-247, I had the opportunity to perform conceptual analysis on different materials such as images and journal articles. I use one of the conceptual analysis assignments from INFO-247 to demonstrate my ability to discover the correct subject for cataloging purposes.  Another piece of evidence from INFO-247 shows my ability to work with a group on the creation of a controlled vocabulary. Another group assignment in INFO-247 illustrates my ability to classify materials based on a controlled vocabulary. An indexing assignment from INFO-247 demonstrates my ability to organize information in an index. And, for evidence on metadata, I provide three files associated with a single metadata assignment I finished for my INFO-240 course.

Evidence

The first evidence I have submitted is called “Vans_Design_3_Final.docx” and can be found on the evidence page. This is a taxonomy I developed with a group in INFO-247 as the final project for the class. The assignment required us to create a taxonomy for a specific website containing more than just text. In our case, we chose a blog about the wardrobe of librarians. The overall objective of this site was to demonstrate that the stereotypes of librarians is simply not true. As a result, this blog had more images than text which made the development of the taxonomy more challenging. The evidence describes the requirements analysis we performed, the fact that we followed ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies, and the final taxonomy itself.  The file “Graphical Hierarchies.docx”, also on the evidence page, is a graphical representation of our hierarchical taxonomy and is an easier format to understand than the one in the document.  This evidence show my experience with controlled vocabulary creation.

The next evidence, “Vans_design3_pres_Final (2).pdf”, also on the evidence page, is the final presentation our group did for the taxonomy we developed together. This evidence is included because the final few slides show how one can use the taxonomy to classify images on the website. This illustrates my ability to use a classification system on real materials.

The next piece of evidence is “Vans_A-Z_Design2.docx” on the evidence page. This document, which is another assignment from INFO-247, is an index I created for a book chapter given to us by the instructor. This A-Z indexing exercise shows that I can do one of the most basic types of vocabulary design.

The evidence titled “Vans_CJPI_Indexing_Assignment .docx” on the evidence page illustrates my familiarity with concept analysis. In this assignment, again from INFO-247, I was required to take a series of journal articles from a specific area (in this case Criminal Justice) and perform a conceptual analysis in order to identify terms for cataloging.  As part of the assignment, we were given a list of subject headings we could use for assigning terms to each article. This evidence shows my ability to both perform a conceptual analysis on a new item and assign terms for cataloging.

The final 3 files on the evidence page contain a single assignment in which I developed and used a series of metadata elements for organizing information on a webpage. This assignment was part of my INFO-240, Website design course. The assignment required me to create an XML file, “onlinebss.xml”, which used metadata I had defined in “onlinebss.dtd”.  The “onlinebss.xsl” file was used to display all or some of the elements. Taken together these three files demonstrate my ability to both create and use metadata.

Conclusions

Organizing information for later retrieval is a very important skill for librarians and other information professionals.  The set of skills needed, including the ability to classify physical and virtual resources, understanding cataloging standards and how to apply them, cataloging resources using controlled vocabularies and metadata standards, help to make unique resources as well as related resources findable and accessible for patron and other users of the institution. I believe my experience with generating taxonomies, indexing, controlled vocabularies, conceptual analysis, and the development of metadata elements for websites has prepared me for work in the area of information organization. Whether I am designing websites, working as a cataloger, or even for organizing my own set of resources for research projects, I believe that the skills I have developed will make information I organize easier to retrieve.

References

Hall-Ellis, S.D. (2015). Organizing information. In: Information services today: An introduction, Hirsh, S. editor. Rowman & Littlefield. London, UK.

MARC21 (2007). The MARC 21 formats: Background and principles. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/marc/96principl.html, Accessed March 22, 2016.

Morville, P. and Rosenfeld, L. (2007). Information architecture for the world wide web, 3rd edition. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Sebastopol, CA.

NISO, N. (2004). Understanding metadata. National Information Standards.

Rowley, J. and Hartley, R. (2008). Organizing knowledge: An introduction to managing access to information, 4th edition. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Burlington, VT.

Rubin, R.E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science, 3rd edition. Neal-Schuman Publishers. New York, NY.

Taylor, A.G. (2008). Organization and representation of information/knowledge. In: The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts, Haycock, K. and Sheldon, B.E., eds. Libraries Unlimited. Westport, CT.