Class 4 – Exploration of cataloging models and
methods
Exercise overview
Last week we explored document encoding systems and metadata schemas by looking at the
Document Object Model, XHTML, JavaScript and CSS. We saw how these technologies work
together to store data (in HTML), present it to the user (using CSS) and manipulate it to create
metadata-rich services.
In the next few weeks we are going to use this foundational understanding of digital documents and
their uses to help us understand the process of selecting, implementing and managing systems that
organize information. Part I of this process is focused on understanding the process of choosing and
implementing a model for our information. We will get an introduction to the concept of metadata and
begin working with metadata by exploring cataloging models and systems. In doing this we will
explore a number of systems including those created for libraries (e.g. AACR2, RDA, MARC), digital
libraries (e.g., DC, EAD, MODS) and standards that are applicable in any information environment
(XML, XSL).
Suggested readings
1. Mitchell, E. (2015). Chapter 2 in Metadata Standards and Web Services in Libraries, Archives, and Museums.
Libraries Unlimited. Santa Barbara, CA.
2. Understanding Metadata. NISO press. http://www.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
3. Read/skim sections 1-5: IFLA. (2009). Statement of International Cataloging Rules.
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf
4. Statement of Principles adopted by the International conference on cataloging principles. (1961).International
conference on cataloging principles. Retrieved from http://www.nl.go.kr/icc/paper/20.pdf
5. Read p 1-12 Standards, C. on D. (2000). ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description. Stockholm:
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON ARCHIVES.. http://www.icacds.org.uk/eng/ISAD(G).pdf
6. In case RDA Toolkit is unavailable http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20t
able.html
Metadata Standards and Web Services
Erik Mitchell
Page 1
7. Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and collections: Schema, selection,
criteria, and interoperability. Information Technology & Libraries, 29 (3), 104-116.
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/3136/2750
8. Boston College. (2012). Cataloging Fundamentals AACR2 Basics: Part 1.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/ulib/staff/cat/fundamentals/AACR2pt1.pdf
Instructions:
Work individually or in groups to complete the worksheet. When you get to a section that requires
you to select a resource to explore – pick one resource (please don’t always choose the first one!).
When asked to ‘discuss as a group’, consider your response and continue completing the worksheet.
We’re going to work with computer coding today and here’s an important note as you follow
the exercises. Computer code is shown on numbered lines and are enclosed in boxes. The
numbered lines are simply to help as a reference during instruction and should not be copied into
your program. For example a line that reads 56. p { visibility:hidden; } should simply be typed in as
p { visibility:hidden; }
Understanding data models and representations
Like any information organization, libraries are interested in maintaining databases of their holdings
(e.g. books, e-books, serials, archives, a/v materials) and in providing access to these resources
using a publically available search engine. In order to crate this database libraries create
representations” of these resources in the form of database records that contain information such as
author, title, publication date and subject headings. This process of creating representations is called
cataloging in LIS.
The process of selecting, implementing and managing a data model for your catalog records is the
focus of our next few classes. This process includes cataloging principles focused on
understanding the process of resource description, a conceptual model for selecting, implementing
and maintaining a descriptive process and a description process of capturing the data about your
resource in a form that meets your data storage and public discovery needs. Each of the following
sections explores these elements individually.
Metadata Standards and Web Services
Erik Mitchell
Page 2
Cataloging principles
The process of cataloging is based on our assumptions about what valuable excerpts or
categorization data about a resource is necessary for the management, discovery, preservation or
curation of that resource. A key part of this process is evaluating a document’s topic or “aboutness”
in which we make value judgments regarding topicality. Another key part of this process is making
value judgments regarding the balance of resources in our database and the information that we
need to pull from our resources (or metadata) to accurately reflect these resources. A third
foundational concept is how we describe the relationships between resources in our database.
In
order to capture these relationships and accurately describe a resource we apply data models to the
description process. Historically this meant descriptive standards such as the AACR2 but in the
coming years the RDA standard in the bibliographic universe and parallel standards in digital and
archival worlds are taking precedence. These metadata standards often focus on describing the
resource but also may include administrative, preservation, structural, and technical information.
These types of information or metadata help us create systems that adequately represent our
resources.
The library profession established the Paris Principles in 1961 to guide the creation of
representations. These principles guided the creation of the AACR and AACR2. In 2009, IFLA
published the Statement of International Cataloging Principles as a replacement for the Paris
principles.
As libraries have needed to catalog new types of resources (e.g. digital and multi-media) and
implement these cataloging approaches in new environments (e.g. the Internet) they have tended to
develop their own principles. The Archives community for example has maintained their own
standards that focus on capturing the unique aspects of archival resources (e.g. manuscript
collections). Likewise, the Dublin Core community designed a cataloging model based on the
description of resources in a linked data environment.
In our readings for this week we explored three different cataloging principle statements, the Paris
Principles, the IFLA statement on cataloging principles, the Statement on International Cataloging
Principles.
Metadata Standards and Web Services
Erik Mitchell
Page 3
Step 1:
Spend a few minutes refreshing yourself with these principles and use them to complete
the following table:
a. IFLA statement on cataloging principles http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf
b. General International Standard of Archival Description http://www.icacds.org.uk/eng/ISAD(G).pdf
c. Paris Principles - http://www.nl.go.kr/icc/paper/20.pdf
Metadata Standards and Web Services
Erik Mitchell
Page 4
Table 1 Comparison of Cataloging Principles
Principle Aspects
Paris Principles
IFLA principles
ISAD (G)
What is the primary function / goal
of the catalog or of description?
To what types of cataloging or
description do these principles
apply?
What type of works or resource
type does the guideline focus on?
Metadata Standards and Web Services
Erik Mitchell
Page 5
Key Questions
Question 1. How would you characterize the focus on information seeking in each principle?
Question 2. What challenges with the process of description can you imagine occurring that these
principles helped satisfy? Are there specific systems that each principle seems to focus on?
Descriptive process
The conceptual model underlying our descriptive approach involves a number of moving parts
including metadata field selection, content formatting, content encoding and data storage/exchange.
In engaging in the descriptive process we work with each of these aspects of description in greater
detail. While there are considerable similarities between domains in this process (e.g. archives and
libraries), there are also considerable differences. In order to stay focused on the process, our next
few worksheets will focus primarily on bibliographic description using library-specific standards (e.g.
MARC, Library of Congress Subject Headings, RDA/AACR2 rules).
Here is a skeleton cataloging process to follow for creating Bibliographic records:
Table 2: Table of RDA and AACR2 cataloging processes
Activity
AACR2
RDA
Catalog “Item in Hand”
Literally transcribe title, author, etc.
Exercise ‘cataloger warrant’ –
Indicate with [sic] where spelling is
interpret correct values and
incorrect and [] where content is
insert comments where
inserted
necessary for context
AACR2 primary access points include:
RDA features many of the same
Title, Author, Contributors
access points but also focuses
Choose access points
on FRBR (more on this below!)
Define relationships
Include reference to related works
Apply FRBR model, select
(Uniform titles, series statements)
relationships to other records
Organization of Information
Page 6
Assign headings
Author, Subject, place
Author, Subject, place, object,
event
Classify – assign call
Apply LCSH
Apply LCSH
Typically MARC coding
MARC or other format
number
Encode in appropriate
standard (e.g. MARC)
Cataloging using AACR2
In both RDA and AACR2 there are multiple approaches to cataloging (e.g. Original and Copy
cataloging) and multiple levels of description. In order to understand more about these levels of
description, lets work with the RDA toolkit.
Step 2:
Connect to the RDA Toolkit and login. Use the credentials supplied in ELMS.
a. Go to http://www.rdatoolkit.org/
b. Click on Access RDA Toolkit
c. Navigate to Resources (You will be prompted to login here)
d. After you login, Use the tree under AACR2 to find section 1.0D (Levels of Description)
e. Review the three levels of description and the fields required for each Fill out the
following table with the elements required in level I.
f. For each element, briefly explore the cataloging rules in AACR2 and use them to
catalog the book – Think Stats (http://greenteapress.com/thinkstats/thinkstats.pdf) –
Hint use the links in the “See” references to jump to relevant portions of the standard.
Hint #2: Exercise restraint – do not get drawn into reading the entire standard!
g. Note: The MARC fields are included here simply to acquaint you with how these
descriptive elements map to MARC. Do not worry about these (in fact they are not
mentioned in the AACR2 standard)
h. When describing item in hand, focus on the title page front (recto) and back (verso) of
the title page, and use the entire source for elements such as physical description and
notes.
Organization of Information
Page 7
Question 3. Using the process described above, complete the following table
Table 3AACR2 level 1 cataloging
AACR2
MARC field
element
Title: Think Stats
(http://greenteapress.com/thinkstats/thinkstats.pdf)
Title Proper (1.1
B)
Statement of
responsibility
(1.1 F)
Edition
statement (1.2
B)
Material
(publication type
specifics),
General Material
Designator (1.3)
Publisher (1.4D)
Date of
publication
(1.4F)
Extent of item
(1.5B)
Organization of Information
Page 8
Notes (1.7) –
only address
briefly for sanity!
Resource
Identifier /
standard
number (ISBN)
Key Questions
Question 4. What challenges did you have in interpreting the cataloging rules for this work?
Question 5. Once you are done, check the end of this worksheet for MARC record representation
of this book. What differences did you find? Where do you think these differences come from?
Cataloging using RDA
RDA uses a different cataloging approach from AACR2. This approach is centered around a
cataloging model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). FRBR
describes the relationships between a Work (e.g. Gone with the Wind), different Expressions of that
work (e.g. a Book published in English, a Movie, and a Book published in French), Manifestations for
each of these Expressions (e.g., the First printing of the English book) and the specific Items that the
library owns (e.g. the Book sitting on the shelf labeled copy 1).
Figure 1 shows us the hierarchical relationship that exists between Works, Expressions,
Manifestations and Items.
Organization of Information
Page 9
Figure 1: FRBR model
RDA focuses the description process around describing the essential fields of each object (e.g. work,
expression, manifestation, item) and the relationships between these objects.
Step 3:
In order to get a better sense of the fields that RDA uses to describe each object, lets
spend a moment with the RDA entity relationship diagram.
a. In the RDA toolkit, click on Tools >> Entity Relationship Diagram >> Overview >>
Relationships
Key Questions
Question 6. Explore the relationships in the model including Hierarchical (e.g. Parent >> Child)
and Sibling (e.g. Child >> Child). We have already explored the primary relationships (e.g.
Work >> Expression, Expression >> Manifestation), what are some “Enhanced relationships in
this model?
Question 7. With our overview model in mind, lets explore the key fields for the description of
Works, Expressions, Manifestations and Items. Under the navigation tree on the left expand
FRBR entities >>Work >> Attributes and click on Core. What are the Core descriptive fields for
a work?
Organization of Information
Page 10
Question 8. What are the core descriptive fields for Expressions?
Question 9. What are the core descriptive fields for Manifestations?
Question 10.
What are the core descriptive fields for Items?
The variation in core elements for each of the four bibliographic entities (e.g. Work, Expression,
Manifestation, and Item) can be somewhat confusing. For example, both work and manifestation
include “Title” and Date concepts as core elements but they can treat these elements differently (e.g.
date of work vs. date of publication). The four primary entities describing work relationships fall under
Group 1 entities (Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item). You may have noticed that RDA includes a
number of other concepts under FRBR as well including Persons Families, Events, Places, Concepts,
and Objects. Two of these (e.g. Persons and Corporate Bodies) are Group 2 entities which are
defined as those who are responsible for the content production, custodianship or dissemination of
Group 1 entities. Finally, Group 3 entities including Concepts, Objects, Events and Places are used
to identify the subject of a work. Several of these entities (e.g. Person, Family, Corporate body,
Place) are also grouped under a model known as Functional Requirements for Authority Data
(FRAD). We will spend more time with FRBR entities in the coming weeks. For now, let’s spend a
moment exploring RDA’s core cataloging elements.
Question 11.
Like AACR2, RDA includes three levels of description. These levels are
Comprehensive, Analytical and Hierarchical. Find the definitions for these three levels in the
RDA toolkit (Hint – They are in section 1.5) and complete the table below.
Table 4: Definition of RDA description types
Description type
Organization of Information
Description definition
Page 11
Comprehensive description
Analytical Description
Hierarchical Description
Question 12.
In the RDA Toolkit, click on RDA >> Introduction >> Core elements (.6). and
browse the core elements (particularly 0.6.1 to 0.6.3) and complete the following table.
Table 5: Map of AACR2 and RDA elements
AACR2 element
RDA element(s)
RDA Toolkit instruction area (Hint –
check appendix D)
Title Proper (1.1
B)
Statement of
responsibility (1.1
F)
Edition statement
(1.2 B)
Material
(publication type
specifics), General
Organization of Information
Page 12
Material
Designator (1.3)
Publisher (1.4D)
Date of publication
(1.4F)
Extent of item
(1.5B)
Notes (1.7) – only
address briefly for
sanity!
Resource
Identifier /
Standard number
(ISBN)
Key Questions
Question 13.
What challenges did you have in mapping AACR2 core elements to RDA?
Were there any that were difficult to find or required more fields?
Question 14.
Refer back to the Entity Relationship Diagrams for the core elements of
Works, Expressions, Manifestations, Items (Tools >> Entity Relationship Diagrams >> FRBR
Organization of Information
Page 13
Entities >> [Entity Name] >> Attributes >> Core. What new/modified elements and/or
relationships need to be defined in RDA that were not defined in your exploration of AACR2
Concluding thoughts
In this class we have explored the principles underlying cataloging, have examined a model that
describes the four elements of a cataloging standard and have considered the standards that inform
the descriptive process in LIS. We found out about many of the details of RDA but there is are
volumes of more information you can learn about the RDA process. For example, one of the major
changes between AACR2 and RDA is the elimination of the “Rule of three” in RDA. The rule of three
limited the number of authors (3) who would be mentioned in a statement of responsibility. This was
a necessary rule in the days of printed cards but with the advent digital information systems these
rules are obsolete. Another obsolete concept in digital information systems is the concept of the main
entry. The Main Entry was an important concept in card catalogs because it was expensive and time
consuming to produce a full cataloging card for multiple access points (Imagine a multi-author work!).
In our current discovery systems however, there is no need to replicate metadata for multiple access
points. As RDA becomes the lingua franca of cataloging we can expect more of these changes to
work their way into our systems and cataloging practice.
Organization of Information
Page 14
Appendix A – MARC record for Think Stats
Organization of Information
Page 15