Competency G
>
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
Shared standards are crucial in cataloging, metadata, bibliographic control, and discovery. They ensure interoperable data between systems, allowing the import and export of bibliographic records. Shared cataloging codes create consistent information, while subject content standards express the "aboutness" of resources (Bolin, 2022). This combination of uniform consistency and comprehensive subject knowledge enhances the organization and retrieval of information and is ultimately how shared standards improve information accessibility. By fostering collaboration among institutions and enabling patrons and staff to navigate a diverse network of information, shared standards facilitate open and reliable access to knowledge.
Classification
Classification is recognized as a connection of both specialized and broad knowledge, as articulated by Hodges and Chan (2017), who describe it as “a special application of a much more general human intellectual activity” (pp. 4470). Classification schemes, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification (LC), are core to the establishment of the organizing and categorizing of information within libraries. These systems are essential for organizing knowledge and ensuring that users can efficiently locate resources. However, without the diligent updates and revisions implemented by the Library of Congress's Policy and Standards Division and OCLC's Dewey Services, these classification systems would risk becoming obsolete and ineffective in the face of evolving information landscapes (Hodges & Chan, 2007). Thus, ongoing efforts to refine and adapt these classification schemes are vital for maintaining their relevance and utility in contemporary library cataloging practices.
Controlled Vocabularies
Controlled vocabularies offer a standardized collection of terms that may be used consistently to describe objects in a collection, ensuring clarity and uniformity in information retrieval. Using precise and thoroughly defined terminology helps to resolve potential instances of ambiguity in the search process and enhances the discoverability of resources. Examples of controlled vocabularies include the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), which provides a systematic way to categorize and organize library materials, and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), which links and consolidates various authority files to create a unified framework for identifying authors and contributors across consortium databases, thereby linking many institutions.
Cataloging
The initial stage of cataloging library resources is descriptive cataloging. In descriptive cataloging, the material is described first, and then the entries are chosen to finish the process (Koa, 2020). MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) format facilitates the cataloging and interchange of bibliographic information in a machine-readable format, with numbers indicating specific fields. MARC records provide a standardized way to catalog various types of resources, ensuring consistency and accuracy in bibliographic data. In this context, BIBFRAME (Bibliographic Framework) is an initiative designed to replace MARC with a more flexible and web-friendly framework that supports linked data principles (Jin et al., 2016). RDA (Resource Description and Access) aims to modernize the cataloging process by utilizing linked data principles to enhance the discoverability and usability of library resources in a digital environment (Bolin, 2022). Catalogers often use RDA to create MARC records that align with contemporary standards and practices, ensuring that bibliographic data remains relevant and accessible in an evolving information landscape.
Metadata Schemas
While numbered fields for a resource's title are still used in MARC format, alternative metadata methods utilize named elements, like "title," and are frequently in the form of an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema (Bolin, 2022). One prominent example of this approach is the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) (2020), which maintains a standardized set of metadata terms called Dublin Core. It consists of fifteen core elements as well as different types of data types, properties, classes, and vocabulary encoding schemes. When combined with other appropriate metadata vocabularies in application profiles, these terms—collectively referred to as DCMI metadata terms—are intended to make it easier to describe and arrange digital resources. In addition to being used in RDF vocabularies for linked data, Dublin Core terms can be applied in non-RDF contexts like XML or JSON, providing for flexible implementation.
Competency Development
Professionally, my experience with classification, controlled vocabularies, cataloging systems, and metadata schemas has been limited largely to using these tools in order to effectively search and discover relevant information. However, it is my MLIS coursework that has prepared me for the development and management of these systems. Particularly INFO 202, Information Retrieval System Design, INFO 284 Enterprise Content Management, and to some extent, INFO 220 Data Services Librarianship have equipped me with the skills to create and utilize metadata for managing documents, born-digital materials, and research data.
Evidence
This discussion post provides an overview of the DataCite Metadata Schema, a standardized set of core properties used for identifying and retrieving datasets, developed by the global non-profit organization DataCite. I explain that the schema includes mandatory, recommended, and optional properties, with specific examples of each. The post also highlights DataCite's focus on enhancing research data management, citation, and discovery, particularly in the context of open science. I also note the schema's interoperability with other metadata standards while emphasizing its generic nature, which supports a wide range of disciplines without replacing specialized metadata. Ultimately, the author underscores the schema's role in increasing the visibility and impact of research outputs and fostering collaboration among researchers.
This discussion post serves as evidence for Competency G by demonstrating a clear understanding of the principles and standards associated with the DataCite Metadata Schema, which is designed to enhance the accessibility of research datasets. By explaining how DataCite facilitates citation and discovery in the context of open science, the post illustrates the practical application of metadata standards in making information accessible to researchers and other stakeholders. I also mention how DataCite is interoperable with other metadata standards, highlighting how metadata schemas function to improve information accessibility.
Evidence 2
In our group project, we each created a data metadata migration sheet that standardized the metadata for our curated digital collection in Preservica, aimed at travel agents and independent travelers. We chose to utilize the Dublin Core Metadata standard for its simplicity and effectiveness in structuring our metadata and the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) as our controlled vocabulary, which enhances the accuracy and reliability of the metadata by providing standardized names and terms for the creators and subjects of the images. Each group member contributed metadata for their selected regions, mine being Scandinavia. The integration of this standardized metadata not only improved the collection's organization but also facilitated public accessibility and navigation of the connected WordPress site.
Through the application of the Dublin Core Metadata standard and the use of the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), this migration sheet acts as evidence to Competency G. This experience highlights my practical application of metadata standards in real-world projects, demonstrating my ability to create and manage metadata to improve information accessibility. The deliberate choice of a widely recognized metadata schema, along with a controlled vocabulary, also illustrates my collaboration with the group's commitment to creating reliable and organized metadata that meets the needs of users.
The Vocabulary Design Worksheet is a structured tool designed to facilitate the creation of a controlled vocabulary. It consists of multiple steps that move through the process of identifying key concepts from various records, grouping similar terms, and refining these into a draft vocabulary. The worksheet serves as evidence for Competency G in that it facilitates the experience of building a controlled vocabulary. By utilizing this worksheet, I systematically developed a controlled vocabulary that enhances the precision and relevance of search terms, ensuring that descriptors accurately reflect the main concepts of the records.
Conclusion
As the volume of information continues to grow exponentially, the information profession’s commitment to shared standards, classification systems, controlled vocabularies, and evolving metadata schemas is more important than ever. These frameworks not only enhance the organization and accessibility of information but also foster collaboration among institutions, ensuring that knowledge remains open and reliable for all users. Beyond the completion of this master's degree, I am dedicated to the ongoing use, refinement, and adaptation of these standards, recognizing that the topography of information is ever-expanding. I aim to contribute to a future where library resources are seamlessly integrated, easily discoverable, and accessible to diverse interests and information communities.
References
Bolin, M. K. (2022). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In S. Hirsh (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 165-178). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Chan, L. M. & Salaba, A. (2016). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. (2020, January 20). Dcmi metadata terms. DCMI. https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/
Hodges, T. L., & Chan, L. M. (2017). Subject cataloging principles and systems. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Fourth Edition (4th ed., pp. 4466–4477). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4-120043713
Jin, Q., Hahn, J., & Croll, G. (2016). Bibframe transformation for enhanced discovery. Library Resources & Technical Services, 60(4), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.60n4.223
Kao, M. L. (2020). Cataloging and classification for library technicians (Second edition.). Routledge. practices. I also suggest methods of evaluating third-party digital services while providing an example of a resource that is based on guidebooks for vendor selection based on ALA principles and values of confidentiality and privacy.