I 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
Library collections include diverse types of materials: books, journals, electronic resources, videos, music, etc. They may also include special collections of photos, artifacts, manuscripts, and other documents. Each item is represented by a surrogate in the library’s catalog, and each surrogate is an electronic record that represents information about the original. When librarians create these records they employ an extensive set of methods, standards, and guidelines. These guidelines help ensure that each record contains complete and accurate information. They specify formatting conventions that make records machine-readable and compatible with online information retrieval systems. They also help ensure that catalog records are consistent. Librarians uphold these standards as a means of serving the information needs of both users and themselves. Complete and accurate record information makes items in the library easier to identify and find. Consistency makes “user searches . . . more successful” (Chan, 2007, p. 13). Records that are machine-readable lets users take advantage of the powerful search features of automated information retrieval systems. In LIBR 248 I became familiar with many of the resources and tools that articulate these standards and guidelines, and I used these tools to create records for books, serials, and electronic resources. Through readings and assignments, I gained an understanding of the system of standards and methods used to control and create information structures and applied basic principles involved in the organization and representation of knowledge.
Commentary
In LIBR 248 I was introduced to two key resources for descriptive cataloging: Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (both accessible through the Library of Congress’ Cataloger’s Desktop). These resources specify rules for creating descriptive information about items in the library’s collection. They provide guidelines for recording information about the title, statement of responsibility, publisher, physical characteristics, illustrative content, indexes, etc. This includes precise instructions about format (e.g., capitalization, spacing, and punctuation) as well as prescriptions regarding acceptable sources of descriptive information. OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards and the Library of Congress’ MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data provide further guidelines for formatting this information according to MARC requirements. Together, these resources help ensure that library records are consistent and machine-readable. Consistency not only makes benefits patrons, it also aids the librarian. The formatting conventions of a library record make it easier for the librarian to identify types of information within a record, even when that record is in an unfamiliar language. In LIBR 248, I not only became familiar with the resources listed above, I used them to create bibliographic descriptions of books, journals, and electronic resources.
In LIBR 248 I also became familiar with guidelines and procedures for representing the subject content of an item. Like guidelines for description and classification, guidelines for subject indexing are designed to ensure the quality, consistency, and MARC compatibility of catalog records. They are also intended to overcome some of the problematic implications of natural language. In natural language, different terms can be used to designate the same subject (synonyms) while a single term may have multiple meanings (homonyms). Given that authors may use different words for the same subject, natural language or keyword searching may fail to retrieve relevant information. Likewise, a keyword search may retrieve irrelevant items because the search term has multiple meanings. Librarians address both problems by relying on authority lists or authority records. Such lists specify a single authorized term for subjects and names (when names are used as access points in the catalog record). The authorized subject term is then used to index any item with that subject. Standards and guidelines are important in this process in two respects. First, guidelines direct the creation of authority files in a way that maximizes their usefulness to users. More specifically, authority lists such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings include “USE references to direct the user from a synonym or quasi-synonym to the preferred term, and UF (used for), BT (broader term), RT (related term), and NT (narrower term) notes to indicate semantic relations between headings” (Library of Congress Subject Headings, 1996). Second, guidelines direct the indexing process itself, helping to ensure that subject terms are accurately assigned to items using a standard, consistent format. In LIBR 248 I had the opportunity to practice subject analysis and use a variety of cataloging tools to identify authorized subject terms for particular items and then index those items using correct MARC fields, indicators, and subfield codes. These tools included The Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings (accessed through Cataloger’s Desktop), OCLC’s Connexion, Library of Congress Authorities, and Library of Congress’ Classification Web.
Classification is another key aspect of a catalog record’s information structure. Classification involves assigning a unique identifier to each item in the library’s collection. This identifier makes it possible to locate items on library shelves. It also groups items with other materials on the same subject, facilitating felicitous information discovery through browsing. The correlation between classification numbers and subject content poses one of the more challenging aspects of classification: it requires the cataloger to identify a single, primary subject for each item. Given that many information resources may give equal treatment (or what appears to be equal treatment) to multiple subjects, identifying the primary subject term can be difficult. This difficulty highlights the importance of clear guidelines for the classification process. Without standards to guide the collective activity of catalogers, subjective judgment would exercise a stronger influence on classification decisions. Over time, this might undermine the organizational function of classification, introducing a degree of randomness or inconsistency on the library shelves. In LIBR 248 I performed subject analysis and used cataloging tools (Classification Web and WebDewey) to build both Dewey and LC classification numbers for print and electronic books. I applied principles of classification to discriminate the primary subject in a work with multiple subjects. Having determined the primary subject, I identified the correct classification schedule (in LCC) or the correct class (in Dewey) and used search features in Classification Web and WebDewey (part of OCLC’s Connexion) to determine the classification closest to the main concept. I used cutter tables to create correct cutter number(s) for LC classifications. In WebDewey, I followed instructions from the schedules to build Dewey classification numbers using Dewey tables and classification numbers from other parts of the schedule.
Evidence
I am submitting three assignments as evidence of my competency in this area. The first is my final project for LIBR 248. As the culminating project for the course, the assignment required me to apply information covered throughout the course. The assignment involved creating complete MARC records for ten books (two of which were electronic sources). This required using appropriate methods and resources to descriptively catalog each item (i.e., title, statement of responsibility, publisher, physical characteristics, etc.), assign appropriate classification numbers (both Dewey and LC), and assign LC subject terms. It also required paying careful attention to MARC field tags, indicator numbers, and subfield codes. The assignment required consulting a full range of cataloging resources, especially AACR (via Cataloger’s Desktop), Connexion, and Classification Web. The assignment demonstrates a strong understanding of the guidelines used to create complete representations of books and ebooks in the MARC 21 format.
The second assignment focuses specifically on Library of Congress classification using appropriate MARC tags, indicators, and codes. Using title, author, and date information, the assignment required identifying the primary subject of the item, and then using Classification Web to identify the appropriate alpha-numeric classification corresponding with that subject. It also involved using cutter tables along with author and date information to complete the classification. In order to make classification numbers MARC compatible, I referred to guidelines in the Library of Congress’ MARC 21 Format for Classification Data. The assignment demonstrates an understanding of the guidelines and standards used to create LC classifications in correct MARC format.
The third assignment focuses on subject indexing. It involved identifying appropriate LC subject terms for twenty-one books based on the titles of those books. It also required using appropriate MARC field tags, indicators, and subfield codes. Assigning correct subject terms to each book was a two-step process: (1) subject analysis and (2) using the information gained from subject analysis to identify correct LC subject terms. The cataloger would normally be able to consult various parts of a work when performing subject analysis. In this exercise, however, I had to rely on title alone (and an occasional bracketed note from the instructor) to determine subject content and identify other features relevant to subject indexing (e.g., time periods, form, and genre). For step two, I used OCLC’s Connexion to search for authorized subject terms. I also used Connexion to consult usage guidelines included in the authority files for both main heading and subdivisions. The assignment demonstrates an understanding of the guidelines and standards used to assign authorized LC subject terms to books.
Conclusion
Librarians employ a rich an extensive set of standards and guidelines when creating catalog records. These standards specify a prescribed structure that integrates key information about the item, e.g., bibliographic information (author, title, publisher, date, etc.), subject matter, and classification data. All of the information contained in the record takes a precise form with respect to format, syntax, punctuation, spacing, field tags, indicator numbers, and subfield codes. Moreover, the information within certain fields (main entries, subject terms, and other added entries) is constrained by authority records. Like bibliographic records, authority records have a prescribed structure that may include fields for tracings and source data. In the case of subject terms, the record may also include information about related terms, broader terms, and narrower terms. These characteristics reflect the librarian’s effort to ensure the quality, consistency, and machine-compatibility of catalog records, not as an end in itself, but a means of fulfilling the ultimate mission of libraries: serving the information needs of users. High-quality, consistent records help users. Moreover, the powerful search features of online catalogs could not function without precise and consistent formatting conventions. The MARC 21 format has an additional benefit for libraries. As Furrie (2000) explains, “Using the MARC standard prevents duplication of work and allows libraries to better share bibliographic resources.” Standards and methods for controlling and creating information structures are essential to librarianship. Through readings and assignments in LIBR 248 I understand those standards and can apply basic principles involved in the organization and representation of knowledge.
References
Chan, L. M. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Furrie, B. (2000). Understanding MARC bibliographic: Machine-readable cataloging. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved Oct. 17, 2009, from http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html
Library of Congress Subject Headings. (1996). In J. M. Reitz, Online dictionary for library and information science ODLIS. [Westport, Conn.]: Libraries Unlimited. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://lu.com/odlis/odlis_l.cfm