Location, location, location! This specific competency deals with the organization of information including how to make information items locatable and discoverable. What's the point of having an information collection if it can't be discoverable? The concept of organizing information is the first concept I learned when I began working in a library. In fact, one of the first trainings I had was completing an online tutorial on the Library of Congress' classification scheme mainly focusing on the "K" class for law, as I work in a law library. I vividly remember that day, learning about reading a call number, cutter numbers, and shelf organization. Now, nearing the end of my MLIS tenure, I know so much more about metadata schemas, cataloging, controlled vocabulary, and classification schemes. I also know so much more about using Integrated Library Systems (ILSs) through my work experience. While brainstorming what I wanted to write for this competency, I came to the conclusion that I wanted to focus on concepts that helped me understand how information is organized in libraries. What follows is a discussion on three topics under the umbrella of this competency.
"Cataloging is the acquisition or creation of bibliographic records for a library catalog or other discovery tool" (Bolin, 2018, p. 142). This concise definition of what cataloging is perfectly sums up the cataloging process. When reflecting on my time in Info-248, Cataloging and Classification, I have come to think of cataloging as a step-by-step process. In the course, we completed four assignments in which we built upon the skills we learned from the pervious modules and assignments. With the first assignment, we learned about metadata and the purpose of it, "to identify and describe resources and make them findable and available" (Bolin, 2018, p.143). We also learned about the MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) format of creating metadata, the most commonly used format of creating metadata in libraries (Bolin, 2018). The MARC format of cataloging, created at the Library of Congress in the late 1960s, uses numbered tags/fields/subfields (e.g., 245, 250, 300, etc.) to encode bibliographic information (Bolin, 2018; Bolin, 2019).
With the first assignment in Info-248, we learned how to perform descriptive cataloging where a description is created of the item (or thing) being cataloged (Bolin, 2019). This is where things like the title, statement of responsibility, publisher, date, and physical description (e.g., pages, illustrations, height) are entered into the MARC record under specific fields such as the 245, 250, 264, and 300 fields (Bolin, 2019). With this first assignment, we learned how to describe five items using the MARC format.
In the second assignment, we focused on authority control by adding access points to our MARC record sets. With this assignment, we learned about authority control as it applies to cataloging. Authority control includes identifying all the authorized forms of names of authors and contributors for an item (Bolin, 2018). Access points in MARC fields include the 100 field for personal name/first author named, 110 for corporate name, 700 for any subsequent author names after the name in 100, and 710 for any subsequent corporate names after the name in the 110 field (Bolin, 2019).
The third and fourth assignments had us turn our focus to subject cataloging where controlled vocabularies and classification systems are used to express the "aboutness" of a book or item (Bolin, 2018). Assignment three had us work with adding Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) (650 fields) and Library of Congress classification numbers (50 field) to our MARC record sets. The fourth, and last assignment, had us work with the Dewey Decimal classification (DCC) scheme by adding DCC numbers to our MARC record sets (82 field).
Each assignment in Info-248 had us build on what we learned thus far about cataloging while adding in new elements to describe and explain the aboutness of information items. Because of that, I have come to learn that cataloging is a process that first begins with describing the item (what is it?), then moves on to adding the correct authority control including authorized name(s), and lastly, moves on to creating the "aboutness" of the item (what is it about?) through subject cataloging. Learning about cataloging as a process helped me understand the concept fully.
Natural language is full of metaphor, figures of speech, poetic license, and nuances. Because of that, we rely on the creation of controlled vocabularies to help us aggregate all the items related to a particular concept (Weedman, 2014). For example, the words teenager, teen, adolescent, juvenile, minor, and young adult all refer to the same age group and concept (Weedman, 2014). In order to aggregate all the items related to this concept, we need one controlled term for the concept. This is where controlled vocabularies exist, in order to mitigate the search problems that can be caused by natural language.
The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is one prime example of a controlled vocabulary. When establishing the "aboutness" of an item, a cataloger simply has to use the LCSH to establish authorized terms to use (Bolin, 2019). A certain drawback of controlled vocabularies is the fact that users are typically unware of what terms are used in a controlled vocabulary (Weedman, 2014). If a thesaurus (or thesauri for multiple) is available on a database or search engine, a searcher will be able to refer to that to find appropriate search terms (Weedman, 2014). In Info-202, I had the opportunity to create a controlled vocabulary for select academic articles. It's a much harder process than it sounds, but it helped understand how controlled vocabularies work and the purpose for them.
Regarding an item's "aboutness", classification is a single way of expressing it (Bolin, 2018). In libraries, we rely on classification systems and schemes to organize information items in a physical space. Working at a law library, I have become very familiar with the Library of Congress classification scheme (LCC). The LCC system uses a series of letters and numbers to express "aboutness" and create a unique location for the item (Bolin, 2018). The letter portion represents the main topic while the number portion represents the subtopic (Bolin, 2018). In law, the main letter classification used under the LCC is "K", with "KF" representing the main topic of federal law and "KFC" representing the main topic of California state law. The LCC scheme has been noted to be mostly used in academic and other research libraries (Bolin, 2019).
Another widely used classification system is the Dewey Decimal Classification (DCC) system. This system, mainly used in public and school libraries (K-12), uses only numbers from ten main classes. Those ten classes are then broken down into 100 subclasses and broken down further into 1000 subclasses (Bolin, 2019). In contrast to the LCC system, the DCC system uses tables to build numbers rather than spelling out all the numbers in the classification schedule (Bolin, 2019).
A third, and a hardly seen, classification scheme that interested me enough to take an entire class devoted to classification schemes is the National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification system. Similarly to the LCC, the NLM system uses letters and numbers to express "aboutness." Specifically, the NLM scheme uses the LCC's vacant "W" as one main class for medicine and related subjects, and the "Q" science class for subclasses of preclinical sciences (Chan & Hodges, 2007). This classification scheme is unique as it only relies on two major subject groups. Having an entire classification system for the subject of medicine is actually beneficial due to the large volume of medical research material and the ability to utilize the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) rather than the LCSHs (Chen & Hodges, 2007). I guess you can say that the NLM classification scheme is in a class all it's own.
This first piece of evidence demonstrates my knowledge and application of official standards for organizing a particular kind of information, my knowledge of basic principles for organizing information, and my ability to apply standards and principles to make information accessible. Building off of three prior assignments in this class, for this particular assignment, we were ultimately tasked with creating a MARC record for 20 adult non-fiction books. In this assignment, I created a MARC record using descriptive cataloging, identifying and including authority control points, and using subject cataloging by including Library of Congress Subject Headings, LCC numbers, and Dewey Decimal numbers for 20 books. To fully complete the assignment, I used tools such as OCLC's Connexion and the LCC's Subject Headings online database. Completing this helped me understand the process behind cataloging and the differences between the LCC and DCC classification systems.
This next piece of evidence demonstrates my knowledge of the best practices for organizing information and to apply standards to make information accessible. In this group project, we were tasked to create a controlled vocabulary for ten scholarly articles geared towards a target user. We choose MLIS students pursuing a public librarianship pathway as the target user. Keeping the target user in mind, we identified the main concepts from each article, grouped similar/related concepts together, filtered the related concepts into a draft list of descriptor terms, filtered that list into a final list of descriptor terms, and lastly, assigned each article 3-6 descriptor terms from our final list. Completing this project helped me understand the concept of controlled vocabulary, as well as the principles of vocabulary design including the goals of a controlled vocabulary; to be able to allow the user to aggregate and discriminate among items while searching.
This last piece of evidence for this competency further demonstrates my ability to apply official standards for organizing a particular kind of information and apply standards to make information accessible. With this assignment, we were tasked with having to assign National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification numbers to a list of titles. Using the NLM online catalog and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) database, I was able to successfully assign NLM call numbers to each title, while also explaining my process and decision in assigning each call number. Completing this assignment helped further understand the NLM classification scheme and the organization of items under the particular topic of medicine.
As information professionals, we have many tools and resources to use to clearly and effectively organize information for our users. Understanding the principles and standards for making information accessible and organized is a desired skill in our field. I'm glad that I took the time in the program to focus some of my coursework on the topic of cataloging and classification schemes. If I end up working in an environment where a different classification system is used, I feel a little more prepared now.
Bolin, M. K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction. (pp. 142-155). Rowman & Littlefield.
Bolin, M. K. (2019). Beginning cataloging and classification [PDF file]. San Jose State University School of Information.
Chan, L. M. & Hodges, T. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (3rd ed.). Scarecrow Press.
Weedman, J. (2014). Subject metadata [PDF file]. San Jose State University School of Information.
Photo credit: Convict Lake, CA by: Michael Van Aken