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.
As referenced in the previous competency, establishing a library collection necessitates a wide variety of essential elements, but one of these is of the highest importance when considering the needs of the patrons: organization. All of the resources in the world will not help patrons if they cannot easily browse the collection that they are a part of. To that end, the methods of organizing information must be discussed. Controlled vocabulary systems are a useful tool that can ensure that patrons’ searches end up fruitful. These also act as an anti-frustration measure when implemented properly. Cataloging systems keep track of a library’s materials, and provide powerful search options that permit users to select and deselect certain options to access exactly the material they are looking for. Finally, metadata works with the back-end of library business, tagging items with information that can be used across multiple systems. Each of these elements of collection organization are incredibly important, and work in conjunction to connect users with the information they are seeking.
In order to understand the importance of controlled vocabulary systems, the mentality behind information seeking behaviors must first be comprehended. Information seeking takes place when individuals expend effort to acquire information on a given topic. It is borne out of an information need, most commonly an attempt to “bridge a knowledge gap in a problematic situation” (Wang, 2011) – and there are as many ways to build this bridge as there are people. Controlled vocabularies seek to homogenize search systems, by designing a specific set of index terms that anyone utilizing a search engine will be required to use (Tucker, 2021). This allows for very specific searches to be designed – but it does mean that much effort has to go into designing the index terms.
Designing these index terms means that the access points for given items and types of items have to be determined. Different aspects of a different artifacts are going to matter to different people. Those who are browsing documents on their phones may only want to observe files up to a certain size, as their device may not be able to handle larger ones. Individuals looking up historical documents will need to know the dates that certain documents were created, updated, and/or restored. Fortunately, all of these elements are organized according to classification systems and metadata schema.
Classification systems allow libraries to have a unified method to categorize their information – systems such as the Dewey Decimal system or MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging). The Dewey Decimal system was first debuted in 1876 by Melvil Dewey, and sought to map all existing library literature to a number code. Specifications would be designated by a decimal point and further numbers, allowing for virtually any subject to be classified and stored for easy access (Kyrios & Satija, 2023). MARC records took a slightly different approach to classification. Instead of referring to a book only by its topic, items sorted through MARC relied on all kinds of different metadata. MARC metadata fields include authors, editors, even the physical dimensions! These records are therefore ideal for library systems that need to be able to identify a book by any number of traits.
However, while metadata is utilized in a MARC record, this system should not be confused with a metadata schema. Metadata is used to describe the ‘aboutness’ of artifacts (Liu, Fu, & Liu, 2023), but different schemas include different information for certain purposes. For example, systems such as Dublin Core include only 15 primary fields (Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, n.d.). Such a system can be used just as easily for tintypes, audio files, or photographs – and can be easily ‘crosswalked’ to other systems. Dublin Core’s simplicity sees it used worldwide – but more specialized schemas have also been developed. EAD and other such schema enforce hierarchical description – by nesting items in files, series, and finally collections. Finding aids can then be used to digitally examine collections that would previously only be searchable in person (ALA TechSource, 2002). Metadata schemas allow for information-distributing institutions to communicate to each other, and those who are interested in their collections, exactly the material that they have to offer.
All of these elements come into play in cataloging systems. Library catalogs are large collections of digital artifacts that have been meticulously tagged (usually with terms pulled from a controlled vocabulary), and offer the user the ability to search them according to their information needs. They can range in size from small private collections to incredibly large systems like WorldCat – but all serve the same central goal: to allow individuals to effectively and efficiently search for information.
This competency was one that I developed primarily over my coursework, as I do not work at present in the back-end of library affairs. I was familiar with how to properly search through cataloging systems, and toggle various search terms to ensure that I found the items I was looking for, but refreshing myself on higher-level Boolean strategies further augmented my skills. Additionally, I found that I had an affinity for developing controlled vocabulary – and a potential interest in working in indexing in the future, should I ever tire of the public sphere. I have a tendency to compulsively organize information, whether it be tidying shelves at the branch where I work, or simply sorting files into hierarchical folders on my personal computer. Until taking classes that focused on controlled vocabularies as a subject, I hadn’t realized that the effort I’d been putting into ensuring that each folder was for a distinct and separate purpose was building the same skills I would use to develop controlled vocabularies for my own search systems. Finally, as I have taken courses that inform me on how MARC records and other metadata schema work, I have gained understanding on how to discover relevant information about books. In several assignments, I was required to include the page count of items I had reviewed – but thanks to my understanding of metadata schema, I no longer had to count by hand. Instead, I knew exactly where to look in the MARC record for the page count and multiple other pieces of information. Over the course of my classwork, and through applications of that classwork in my library career, I have developed understanding of the underlying process of information organization.
In order to demonstrate the knowledge that I have developed regarding organizing information in libraries, museums, and other collections, I have assembled a collection of my own. I chose to focus on coursework where I created MARC records, identified key aspects that would allow for identification of artifacts, and discussions where the merits of various metadata schema were discussed. The first of these assignments was the first MARC record that I created in INFO 248: Introduction to Cataloging and Classification. As a whole, this course offered a fantastic overview of all of the different elements that could be used to classify materials in the Machine Readable Cataloging format, and each assignment built upon the previous one until we were able to fully create records for items. In this assignment, I focused on the physical aspects of the book and basic bibliographic information – but was challenged to organize this information according to the new-to-me MARC record fields. The second assignment that demonstrates the knowledge I have gained pertains to classification. In INFO 202: Information Retrieval Design, one of the first assignments we were tasked with completing was organizing our sock collections. We had to select elements that were unique, ones that were common, and place them into a large grid. This turned out to be excellent practice for creating controlled vocabularies later in the semester, as it honed our ability to determine what elements were most relevant for sorting and classification. Finally, I have presented here one of the discussion posts that I wrote for INFO 281: Metadata. In this course, I built upon the general understanding of MARC records that I developed earlier in INFO 248, and learned about many other metadata schemas. In this post, I explore why a certain collection, the OAC, allows indexers to upload their own Finding Aids, rather than creating their own. Overall, I feel that these documents display competency with a wide range of the elements present in categorization, classification, and organization overall.
This assignment was my first introduction to MARC records, and it covered several specific fields. It introduced the idea that some fields could be repeatable, such as the 020 ISBN field, and gave me a sense of which pieces of metadata are usually the most important. As such, it focused on identifying the item by author, title, length, and physical dimensions of the book.
A challenge I had with this assignment was that the book that we were supposed to be creating the record for had a series editor. Normally, editors were supposed to be included as a part of the 245 field, as this includes delimiter c, the author or another associated name. However, because this was an editor for the entire series of books, I ended up having to poke around on the MARC record guide site, until eventually determining that the 490 field, that which denotes information about the series as a whole, was the more appropriate place for this information. I felt adequately challenged by this assignment, and it set the tone for the rest of what the coursework would be like, and truly enhanced my understanding of MARC records.
Controlled vocabularies have to be designed intelligently, otherwise they have limited usefulness. Therefore, when this first assignment in INFO 202 challenged us to come up with the types of categories that we would use to organize our socks, it was the perfect practice for later assignments. In this piece of coursework, I learned to identify appropriate index terms such as pattern, quality, and theme. Theme ended up being a very interesting category to include, as I did not initially expect to have to include a null category. However, some socks will not have a theme, and more importantly, an individual searching a sock database may intentionally be seeking non-themed socks. This assignment emphasized the importance of considering the user experience when designing a database, as well as how difficult it can be to truly create representative classifications.
There are a wide variety of metadata schemas that exist, and all are used for various different purposes. MARC is one of the primary methods used today to classify and categorize books, but Dublin Core can be used to organize a wider range of formats, and EAD (Encoded Archival Description) creates a standard for reading information on archived documents. In order to make these various types of schemas more user-friendly (the goal of all information organizating), in this assignment I explored the decision of OAC to allow indexers to upload their own Finding Aids. With this system, instead of being forced to encode every document in an organization’s collection according to EAD guidelines, they could upload their own version of a Finding Aid, simplifying the process for researchers looking for information. This decision saves time and effort for the organizations that are seeking to get the papers they have available into the hands of researchers. Ultimately, the decision to use EAD-encoding or an individualized Finding Aid is a matter of scale. If an organization has a small enough collection and a dedicated archival staff, they may still be able to run their whole collection through EAD. But if this is not the case, the implementation of their own Finding Aides will allow them to still offer access to their collection.
While I believe that my library career still is aligned with public branches, the information I have gained through completing this competency has offered me an alternative pathway. Learning about how to encode records across a wide variety of formats was very interesting, and leads me to think that in the event that I burn out on interacting with the public, I may have a future in archives. I feel that I am now able to better answer reference questions and find helpful resources for patrons, due to my understanding of the underlying principles of information organization. The ability to classify information is one that I know I will be able to apply to my life outside of the library as well, and assist me in becoming a more organized individual.
Dublin CoreTM Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description. (n.d.). DCMI. Retrieved March 5, 2025, from https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dces/
Kyrios, A., & Satija, M. P. (2023). A Brief History of the Dewey Decimal Classification. In A Handbook of History, Theory and Practice of the Dewey Decimal Classification System. Facet Publishing.
ALA TechSource (2002). Metadata standards. Library Technology Reports, 5(19-59).
Liu, W., Fu, Y., & Liu, Q. (2023). Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling. Data Intelligence, 5(1), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00189
Tucker, V.M. (Ed.). (2021). Information retrieval system design: Principles & practice (6.1 ed.). AcademicPub/XanEdu.
Wang, P. Information behavior and seeking. Ruthven, I., & Kelly, D. (Eds.). (2011). Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. (pp. 15-41). Facet.