Article Summary for Lecture #14- Anhalt & Stewart

RDA Simplified

esource Description and Access, better known as RDA, was introduced to the cataloging world in 2005 as a simpler version of what was initially supposed to be AACR3 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 3). RDA was designed to help catalogers conquer the digital world and give a guideline for all cataloging all types of content and material. The reason RDA was made its very own set of rules is because the outcome of an RDA record ends up being so different from an AACR record.

The differences between AACR2 and RDA are quite clear. While AACR2 was introduced in 1978, during the era of card catalogs, it does not provide rules for cataloging newer digital content and emerging technologies. Also, AACR2 is a set of rules that dictates not only the content needed in a record, but how these records should be displayed and arranged. RDA is much more simple in that it only covers what content needs to be in the record. It is a lot less standardized that the AACR series and allows for greater freedom at individual institutions to best fit their needs. Another difference between AACR2 and RDA is that RDA encompasses FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) technology to make searching for materials through an online database much more inclusive. FRBR allows databases to link related works, expressions, manifestations, and items so that users can find the exact copy and version of what they are looking for.

RDA instructs that information in the description may be taken from anywhere in the original source, information is to be input exactly as it is worded in the source, and all names that appear in the statements from responsibility are to be transcribed as well. Traditionally, information from title pages was the only information used when creating bibliographic records, but as time has gone on and publishers have taken style and creative liberties, information found on title pages are not a reliable source to get all of the information needed when creating surrogate records anymore. RDA dictates that catalogers are no longer limited to the title page and any information found throughout the source is fair game. Another difference found is RDA is that originally, bibliographic records were contained corrected typos and fixed mistakes that may appear in the source with a denotation that the entry has been revised from the original work, but with RDA, we are to record everything as it appears in the source, mistakes and all.

Reference

Anhalt, J. & Stewart, R.A. (2012). RDA simplified. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 50(1):33-42.

Article Summary for Lecure #11- Barite

The Notion of “Category:” Its Implications in Subject Analysis and in the Construction and Evaluation of Indexing Language

Simply put, categories are defined as a broad term given to a group to describe what all of the elements in that group have in common or what makes them go together. Philosophers have been redefining “categories” since the times of Aristotle. Most people are able to tell you what a category is or seem to understand the concept of categories, but it turns out that they are much more complex and abstract than one might think. Categories are patterns and groups found by our brains to make better sense of the world around us. Our brains automatically put information into boxes or categories to better understand new things. For example, this summer I was at a doctor’s office telling him my symptoms and as I was listing my symptoms, he told me that he was trying to see if they fit into the “boxes” in his head of all the different ailments I could be dealing with. My symptoms were put into categories to try to make sense of what was happening with me. If my doctor wasn’t thinking of my symptoms in this manner and just took each one individually instead of grouping them, he may have never figured out what was really wrong with me and instead would have treated each symptom individually, like my previous doctor, and I would still be suffering today. Categories make is easier for us to both process and recall information. Thinking of this in the world of libraries… a patron tells you they want a book on pigs, horses, and cows. You would probably search for the category all of those terms fall under, which would be “farm animals” rather than searching for each animal individually. Categories can also be used to organize information and objects outside of our brains as well. We group non-fiction with non-fiction and fiction with fiction. We may even group all of the books that fall under the “romance” category together or “mysteries” or “sci-fi”. This makes it easier for users to find other works that they may like base on their interest in a particular category, or in this case, genre. Catalogers use categories as tools when planning and designing indexing languages.

Categories give catalogers a way to organize subject headings and keep everything in order. Categories also need to have elements that fall within that category. Categories cannot exist without a group of entities that the term holds together. Categories can therefore be analyzed and analyzed in many different ways. The article uses the French Revolution as an example. If you put a string of facts under “French Revolution”, you can study this facts as chronological events, you can look at how these facts influenced other countries or how they affected the population of France. You can use the information under this category to answer many different questions that you may be looking for during your study.

Reference

Barite, M. (2000). The notion of "category:" Its implications in subject analysis and in the

construction and evaluation of indexing languages. Knowledge Organization 27:4-10.

Article Summary for Lecture #10- Northedge

Google and beyond: information retrieval on the World Wide Web

                        The invention of the World Wide Web has brought new challenges, but also many great improvements for information retrieval. The growth of available information has made it impossible for humans to maintain and catalog all of the vast number of resources out there. The limitation of controlled vocabularies and human indexing does not exist with search engines. They are also available 24/7 online so we do not deal with the limitation of a library’s open hours either.

                        Search engines function by having a software agent, or computer program, scan and analyze web pages to index them. The software agents do this continually to add more and more pages to the search engine’s index. When someone submits a search query in the search engine, the engine uses these indexes to quickly retrieve web pages that fit what the user is searching for. Google is known for their gigantic index as well as what they call “PageRank”, which is a algorithm system that Google founders have developed to weed out unimportant web pages that would clog up a user’s search with “bad” sources at the top of their list. For example, if you Google “Facebook”, Facebook.com would be the first result with the most relevant and popular pages just below it. As you went through page after page and page of results for Facebook, because there would be a lot, you would come across pages that may just mention “Facebook” on it, but is not a site you would ever be looking for like a blog or a random organization’s website.

                        A problem with search engines and how they accumulate keywords or tags to be used when finding results is that website creators can insert metatags that are irrelevant to their site just to be included on more search results and bring traffic to their page. A website for a dog breeder in Colorado should not have the metatag “Chicago Cubs” just because they want to gain attention from the world series hype. A breast cancer awareness site should not use the tag “election 2016” to put themselves on search engine results list just because that is a popular search term right now. Search engines are far more beneficial than harmful though and they will only get better from here. They make finding information faster and easier than ever and are here to stay.

Reference

Northedge, R. (2007). Google and beyond: Information retrieval on the World Wide Web. The

Indexer 25:192-195.

Article Summary for Lecture #9- Shiri, Revie, & Chowdhury

Thesaurus-Enhanced Search Interfaces

An important issue search engines face is user inquiries matching the vocabulary in surrogate records. If a term doesn't exactly match, that source will not come up as a search result even if it is exactly what the searcher is looking for. If I am looking for a book on prehistoric reptiles, if I put that in, I may have gotten better results if I had searched for "dinosaurs" instead. This is a problem catalogers have faced and with emerging technologies, they have been able to fix this for the most part. Early versions of thesaurus enhanced search interfaces were introduced in the 1970’s to largely help with filling the gap between what the user thinks they are looking for and what they are really looking for in a catalog. Catalogers realized it would be much easier to provide this tool within the system instead of hoping that one day users will just be able to figure out what to put in and what will give good results and what will not. Without having to exactly match terms in a catalog system, users are able to get much better search results. The 1980’s brought artificial intelligence and expanded thesauri use within information systems. Thesaurus-enhanced systems use a mapping technique in which the user’s term is linked with terms found in the system’s thesaurus and the results are arranged with the user’s term first and then the other located terms after that. Some systems even recommend different terms while typing your inquiry or after the search has been submitted with the number of results that you would get based on those terms. While integrating thesauri into search interfaces has greatly improved how users are able to search using these systems, they are far from perfect. Going back to the prehistoric reptiles example, after looking up “reptile” in a thesaurus, the definition the thesaurus comes up with is “a person who is very dishonest” and offers terms such as weasel, cheater, snake, and rascal. The only one that is maybe going to get me results I am looking for is snake, as in “prehistoric snake”, but still not exactly the dinosaurs I am really looking for. The problem with using a thesaurus in a search interface can be that the term you are searching more may not be used in the way the thesaurus thinks you are using it. Of course that would be an example of a very ineffective search system and while thesauri systems may not be flawless, they are helping users and are being improved all the time.

References

Shiri, A.A., Revie, C., & Chowdhury, G. (2002). Thesaurus-enhanced search interfaces. Journal

of Information Science 28:111-122.

Article Summary for Lecure #8- Chan & Hodges

Entering the Millennium: A New Century for LCSH

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) have been around since the late nineteenth century. Originally a modified version of a subject headings list published by the American Library Association, the Library of Congress chose this list to begin their transformation to a dictionary form catalog. The LCSH list started off as a subject access system for the Library of Congress, but over the past century has evolved into a tool used by libraries throughout our country and around the globe.

The growth and acceptance of the LCSH can be attributed to the fact that the Library of Congress made their cataloging records available to other libraries. Beginning in 1902, LC began distributing its printed cards and in 1993 made their collection of records available online. Being able to share resources electronically made cataloging with the LCSH a breeze and cut down on manual labor since catalogers did not have to create aa record from scratch for every single item their institution acquired. Since catalogers had access to this vast resource, why would they create their own way of cataloging when the work is already done for them by the Library of Congress? The LCSH is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. Many libraries and commercial institutions that don’t use the LCSH at least use the list as a model for their own systems. The LCSH can be used as is or can be modified or translated to be used in a variety of specialized settings.

While the LCSH list may not be perfect, many catalogers agree that this list is one of the best retrieval tools available today. Due to dependable authority control and a large vocabulary, there is a high retrieval recall rate for the LCSH list. It’s structure is also dynamic in that is can easily be expanded based on the institution’s needs.

At the end of the twentieth century, we were able to see a great change in how the LCSH was versus how it began in the late nineteenth century. With the advancing online tools, we began to see bibliographic records using subject headings from multiple schemas. Library users’ behavior changed with the online world. Called the principle of least effort, library users were no longer willing to do much work to find resources and when they get their electronic search results, patrons are likely to only consider the first few results. Therefore, in order to get the best results possible, schemas were combined so that whatever the user put into the search box would give the best results in finding a match.

In the future, who knows what will be in store for LCSH. As with anything, the system will have to be adapted to the changing times and technology that is to come. LCSH has come a long way and I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve and grow to accommodate library needs in the forseeable future.

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) have been around since the late nineteenth century. Originally a modified version of a subject headings list published by the American Library Association, the Library of Congress chose this list to begin their transformation to a dictionary form catalog.

The growth and acceptance of the LCSH can be attributed to the fact that the Library of Congress made their cataloging records available to other libraries. Beginning in 1902, LC began distributing its printed cards and in 1993 made their collection of records available online. Being able to share resources electronically made cataloging with the LCSH a breeze and cut down on manual labor since catalogers did not have to create aa record from scratch for every single item their institution acquired. Since catalogers had access to this vast resource, why would they create their own way of cataloging when the work is already done for them by the Library of Congress?

The LCSH is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. Many libraries and commercial institutions that don’t use the LCSH at least use the list as a model for their own systems. The LCSH can be used as is or can be modified or translated to be used in a variety of specialized settings.

Reference

Chan, L., & Hodges, T. (2000). Entering the millennium: A new century for LCSH. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 29(1/2):225-234

Article Summary for Lecture #7- Taylor

On the Subject of Subjects

Subject cataloging has apparently been a hot debate topic among librarians for centuries. Some believe that people know what they are looking for and there is no need to have works sorted by subject, while others claim that most people only know that they need a book on a particular subject with no specific title in mind. Studies have shown that searching by subject in online catalogs has decreased over time with patrons instead favoring keyword searches.

Keyword searches are very similar to subject searches, but keywords give you a little more wiggle room with what you're searching for, where subject searches require specific and certain terms to be searched or controlled vocabulary. Keywords are somewhat like today's Instagram hashtags in my opinion. If you were looking for a non-fiction book about zombies and searched zombies in a keyword search, you'd get tons of results because those results were tagged with "Zombie" as a keyword. If you were to do the same term as a subject search though, you might not get any results because the subject about zombies may be considered "Haitian Folklore", but because that wasn't the exact term we searched for, we didn't get any results. The problem with keyword searches is that these searches are typically too broad and can give too many results of varying quality. Keywords may also be taken from words that have multiple meaning and bring up completely irrelevant search results.

Beginning in 1992, to make subject searches easier, The Library of Congress, OCLC, and Research Library Group teamed together to standardize how subjects are cataloged. These groups created what it called a Core Record that has all kinds of rules on what can be in it and has a code so that people can know what they're reading, similar to a MARC record. For monographs, each  Core Record is required to have a classification number recognized by USMARC as well as at least two subject headings from an established thesaurus and also recognized by USMARC.

Those opposed to Core Records say that it makes sense to go through the effort of classifying physical items and grouping them on shelves by subject, but with electronic records, what is the point? Classifying records by subject can allow records to be related to each other and can be used to link terms across thesauri. I would think that this means that if you search "Haitian Folklore" as a subject, you will also come across "Haitian Mythology" because "mythology" and "folklore" are synonyms and the database would use a thesaurus to find these synonyms. With keywords, this would become way too chaotic and give way too many search results.

I personally like keyword searches. In my experience, when using my library's OPAC, keyword gives the best results and the item I'm looking for are usually at the top. I would say I use keyword searches 85% of the time, otherwise using author or title searches. I don't think I've ever used subject search. When I search "sewing" in keyword search, I get all of the results I'm looking for. I can see how keyword searches may be less useful in databases containing journal articles like EBSCO or PsychInfo because there are typically more keywords per record than library OPAC's.

Reference

Taylor, A. (1995). On the subject of subjects. Journal of Academic Librarianship 21:484-91.

Article Summary for Lecture #5- Delsey

 Standards for descriptive cataloguing:

Two perspectives on the past twenty years

  

This article explains two elements, shared catalog records and computer technology, that have affected the standardization of cataloging around the world. With the great advancement of technology over the past few decades, it is not hard to believe that cataloging has evolved right along with it.

First, improvements in technology has allowed libraries all over the planet to communicate with each other and share information and resources.  The International Federation of Library Associations has created a code called the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules that catalogers follow to have uniform bibliographic records. This code allows for a single agency to create the bibliographic record following the accepted cataloging rules and this record can then be used by any cataloger, which saves a lot of time, money, and energy. Another benefit to having a standard way of cataloging items is so that they can be shared with others across the country and even internationally. A group of libraries, called the ABACUS libraries, are the national bibliographic agencies for their countries and they have helped develop alternative rules within the AACR2 so that records and items can be shared internationally with little modification and effort. Previous to this, differences in languages and cultural context made it difficult to transfer records internationally.

Next, twenty years ago, most libraries were still using card catalogs. Obviously today things are different and with the advancing technology has come a higher demand of accuracy in cataloging. Delsey (1989) points out that back in the card catalog days, as long as the card fit in the catalog box, the record was able to be used in the catalog and would serve its purpose. Today, if something it not put in the electronic catalog correctly, it is possible that when searching for the item in a database, it might never come up as a search result. This can include typos, inserting the wrong information in the wrong field, and other easily made mistakes. Computers also made it necessary for records to be consistent across all material types. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR then developed a General International Standard Bibliographic Description in 1977 that served as a foundation for all material types. This was accepted by the IFLA and was adopted into the AACR2. Today, we’re seeing a shift from records being single units to records being cataloged as relational to others. Computers have allowed us to attach related records together so that users are able to see all different editions, translations, and manifestations of a work. With technology still rapidly developing, we will see what the next twenty years brings to cataloging.

Reference

Delsey, T. (1989). Standards for descriptive cataloguing: Two perspectives on the past twenty

years. In E. Svenonius (Ed.), The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging, pp 51-60. San Diego: Academic Press.

Article Summary for Lecture #4- Carlyle

Understanding FRBR As a Conceptual Model

The Fuctional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a conceptual model. Conceptual models can be used to explain ideas and theories through representation. To use conceptual models, one must first operationalize the elements of the model. Operationalizing makes it so that we can observe and measure the output of an abstract element. For example, when looking at something like happiness, you can operationalize that by counting how many times someone smiles or how many times they say something positive. The elements of FRBR that need to be operationally defined are “work”, “expression”, “material”, and “item”. To explain, a “work” is the original publication by an author, an “expression” is a remake or artistic realization of a work, a manifestation is the physical format of an expression, and an item is the single copy of that manifestation. The difference that this model makes in cataloging is that bibliographic records usually just describe the single item that you are looking for, but FRBR makes it so that bibliographic records contain information relating the item back to other expressions and manifestations, making FRBR an entity-relationship model. An example of this can be if I was looking for the children’s book Charlotte’s Web, instead of just getting one record for Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White, I would find multiple records, representing translations in different languages, a modern retelling, movie versions, a graphic novel version, etc… all of the different expressions and manifestations of Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White that may have different titles, authors, and formats, but they are all related back to the original work of Charlotte’s Web. This is the power of FRBR. Evaluating conceptual models can be difficult, but you must look at the goal of the model to determine if it is good or not. The goal of FRBR is to provide a framework that would facilitate a common understanding of what a bibliographic record provides information about. One of the cons of FRBR is the abstractness of the elements it uses. There are no concrete definitions or qualifications for “works”, “expressions”, and the rest. This makes it difficult for us to reach a mutual understanding and complete agreement on the correct way to catalog items using the FRBR model. What make be an expression of a work to one person may be considered a totally different work by a colleague. The entities used in FRBR are not exactly new to the cataloging world and FRBR is relatable to many past models, what is new about FRBR is that is brings relationships between different items into account when cataloging, making catalogs and databases more efficient than ever.

Reference

Carlyle, A. (2006). Understanding FRBR as a conceptual model: FRBR and the bibliographic

universe. Library Resources & Technical Services 50:264-73.

Article Summary for Lecture #3 - Russell

Hidden Wisdom and Unseen Treasure: Revisiting

Cataloging in Medieval Libraries

Cataloging in the medieval period was rudimentary at best, but serves as the foundation for the system that we use today. The biggest problem medieval librarians dealt with was lack of a standard when organizing their collections and every library had a different way of cataloging their collections. There was no mass printing and books were not as common or widely available as they are today so libraries in the medieval times did not have huge collections or a need to constantly keep up with a quickly growing collection. A lot of the libraries were part of churches and monasteries, used to hold religious texts intended for monks and other individuals involved in the church. Once larger libraries were built to include secular as well as religious works, librarians realized that they needed a better system of organizing, finding, and retrieving items from their collections. This is when cataloging became more involved with the content of books rather than just the title and author. They also needed to note the location of the items in these larger building and began labeling shelves and including the shelf name in their catalogs. Medieval catalogers used a variety of techniques to record the books in their collections, including details such as physical descriptions, condition of the item, opening lines, and many more. Books in medieval catalogs were also divided by function. School books were kept together, while religious books had their own place. In the Durham Cathedral, books that were restricted to who could use them were kept locked away behind iron gates. Interestingly enough, union catalogs, which are a collaborative list of all of the items within a group of libraries, did exist in this time period and were intended to be used by travelers looking for a specific item so that they wouldn’t waste their time going to so many different libraries. This meant they could go to a nearby library and be able to see if other libraries in the area had it, very similar to today’s library systems. The Registrum Librorum Angliae from 1296 was one of these union lists and contained the holdings of one hundred and eighty-three libraries in England. It is interesting to see how similar yet very different medieval cataloging is from modern cataloging. Medieval librarians changed how they sorted and cataloged their libraries based on what their individual library needed at the time. It seems that a lot of the same ideas and reasoning are still in use, we have just adapted to technology available to us today.

Reference

Russell, B. M. (1998). Hidden Wisdom and Unseen Treasure: Revisiting Cataloging in Medieval

Libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 26(3), 21-30.

Reflection on the Principle of Least Effort

The back end, developer side of databases and search engines are something not many people know about. Many people do not realize all of the elements that go into organizing information into databases and search engines. Users are used to typing in what they are looking for and getting instant results without a second thought to all of the algorithms and processes that librarians and researchers use to make information searchable and easy to find. Bates (1999) calls this the paradigm of information science that is under the water line. This is part of being a librarian that people do not see, the forming and organizing of information.

On the user end, the principle of least effort states that when users are using databases to find sources, they are most likely to use what is easily available even if they are of a lower quality, rather than doing more work to get high quality sources (Mann, 1993). A study by Victor Rosenberg has shown that this is the case in both scholarly as well as non-scholarly users (as cited in Mann, 1993). Database users start by setting a reasonable goal: to find information that supports what they are researching. Once this goal is achieved, they stop searching, regardless of if there is better information they may be missing out on (Mann, 1993).

Librarians use bibliographic objectives to help people find what they are looking for. There are five types of bibliographic objectives that are used when looking for an entity in the library. They are finding, collocating, choice, acquisition, and navigation objectives (Svenonius, 2000). First you have to identify what you are trying to look for, for example, I want to look for a book about the history of unicorns. Next would come the collocating objective. This is not something that users have to deal with directly, this is more of how the database is set up. The collocating objective hopes that the database will pull up all of the relevant sources that I am looking for and only the relevant items that I am looking for. Keeping with my unicorn example, I search “unicorns” in a database and I get my results. The database finds 42 books in the library about unicorns, so the next step is the choice objective, which focuses on the preferences of the patron such as format and content. I then have to narrow my search and find out which entities are non-fiction and include the history of unicorns in a physical book format. This brings my search results to only three books in the library. The acquisition objective follows this and involves locating and obtaining the items you have found in the database. This can mean going to the shelves, downloading an e-book, ordering the item from another library, etc… Since I am only looking for physical books in the library I am currently in, I am able to walk over to the shelf and find the three non-fiction books about unicorns. The great part about being a librarian is that you have the talent of finding useful information to help others learn about so many subjects, but you don’t have to know anything about that subject to do it (Bates, 1999). Librarians don’t need to know anything about unicorns to help patrons learn about unicorns.

The connection between the principle of least effort and bibliographic objectives is that when creating databases and organizing information, librarians have to keep in mind that people are not going to go to great lengths to find exactly what they need and the best source for it, they are going to find what pops up first in their search and call it a day. Libraries and information organizers have to adapt to how people search for information. This means that information needs to be organized in a way that allows the best possible sources to be easy to find. This can include tagging items and articles with appropriate keywords and making sure that items are properly cataloged so they are able to be found. If I search unicorns and a book about dragons is in the first few results, there is an error in how the item was cataloged and the database needs to be updated because the collocation objective was not met. Dragons may be related to unicorns in that they are both part of mythology, but that is not what I am looking for at the moment.

References

Bates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American

Society for Information Science J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 50(12), 1043-1050. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(1999)50:123.0.co;2-x

Mann, T. (1993). The Principle of Least Effort. In Library Research Models: A Guide to

Classification, Cataloging, and Computers (pp. 91-101). New York City, IL: Oxford University Press.

Svenonius, E. (2000). Bibliographic Objectives. In The Intellectual Foundations of Information

Organization (pp. 15-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.