Jessica R. Buchanan
Dr. Kazmer
LIS5703 – Information Organization
November 5, 2011
Representation
and Description
Introduction
For
the purpose of this paper I will examine “A World of Ideas: Essential Readings
for College Writers” 6th ed. and how Machine-Readable Cataloging
(MARC) and Dublin Core (DC) work to provide a searchable bibliographic record
for said item. Through a close examination of the item, there will be
discussion of the aspects I have deemed most important and how those are
represented in both a MARC and DC record. Once this has been done, I will delve
into a more in-depth look at the differences and similarities between the two
records, the importance of clean metadata to ensure effective usability, and
how MARC and DC work towards that goal.
Important
Aspects
In examination of “A World of Ideas: Essential Readings
for College Writers” 6th ed. it was determined that the following
aspects would be important in any descriptive metadata record pertaining to
this item.
Title
First
and foremost, it is important that the title of the book be in any record, as
to give the end-user access to the name the book holds. The reason that this
has been cited as an important aspect is due to the fact that one must know the
title in order to accurately determine whether or not they have found the
correct item.
Author
Another
important aspect is that of author/editor. Not only does this type of
information give you the author for a particular work, but it also gives you
access to the name for instances where you would like to read or view additional
items created by the same person.
Works
Collected
“A
World of Ideas” is a book of collected essays. It is believed that having those
essays listed within the bibliographic record would benefit the end-user in
finding an item that contains a certain essay they may be looking for.
Edition
For
the purpose of this assignment, I have chosen to work with the 6th
edition of the book, and therefore view that it is important that the edition
of a book be viewable in any descriptive metadata record. The reason for its
importance is that it tells the end-user whether or not they are working with
the most up to date information.
Publication
Year
Like
edition, publication year helps the end-user know if they are working with the most
up to date information and can also help to determine if they can view it as a
relevant resource.
MARC
Record
The following is
a MARC record for “A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers” 6th
ed. taken from the Library of Congress online database and includes the six
items of importance that have already been discussed:
245 02 |a A
world of ideas : |b essential readings for college writers /
|c [edited by] Lee A. Jacobus.
250 __ |a 6th
ed.
260 __ |a Boston
: |b Bedford/St. Martin’s, |c c2002.
504 __ |a Includes
bibliographical references and index.
700 1_ |a Jacobus,
Lee A.
We
can see from the representation above that the 245 tag contains the title and
responsibility of the bibliographic record, the 250 tag is for Edition
Statement and the 260 tag contains information related to the year of
publication (2002). In regards to bibliographic information contained within
the book itself, this MARC record uses the 504 tag to show that there is
bibliographic references and an index. While I have listed the 504 tag (as that
is what was contained in the MARC record from the LoC), the 505 tag would be
more appropriate for my initial thoughts that a detailed list of the essays
included in the book should be represented in the descriptive metadata for this
particular record. The 700 tag in this record is for added entry – personal
name in order to make the name of the editor in this record match authority
control.
DC
Record
Now
I will examine a DC record for “A World of Ideas: Essential Writings for
College Readers” 6th ed. and how it differs in representation from
the MARC record that was just reviewed:
<dc:title>A World
of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers</dc:title>
<dc:creator>Jacobus,
Lee A.</dc:creator>
<dc:description>List
of essays held within book.</dc:description>
<dc:date>2002</dc:date>
<dcterms:isVersionOf>A
World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers 5th
Edition</dcterms:isVersionOf>
<dcterms:hasVersion>A
World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers 7th
Edition</dcterms:hasVersion>
<dcterms:hasVersion>A
World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers 8th
Edition</dcterms:hasVersion>
The
DC record for this item reads more like html and is easy to read even for
someone who might not be familiar with cataloging and bibliographic
information. From the beginning it is easy to determine that the title is “A
World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers” as the tags read title.
This holds true in the majority of tags for DC records, which is due in large
part to the fact that DC was developed by “experts from many different fields
[and] therefore…is a cross-domain standard and can be the basis for metadata
for any type of resource in any field” (Taylor and Joudrey 213).
Similarities
and Differences of MARC and DC Records
Similarities
It is clear that both MARC and DC strive to produce
effective bibliographic records. Yasser states, “unless a metadata record
effectively and accurately represents the resource being described, the
resources themselves will remain inaccessible.” It can thus be synthesized that
the goal of MARC and DC is to provide detailed information to meet the end goal
of users, accessibility. They both provide a way to include the same
information and help to accurately describe what one might need to know about
an item.
Differences
While the end
goal of MARC and DC are similar, how they get there is slightly different. MARC
uses a sophisticated set of fields and subfields to describe the data located
in a bibliographic record. In comparison, DC uses a set of 15 elements that can
be used to describe any object in a bibliographic record. “While it certainly
is easier to create 15 elements as opposed to ‘tags and fields and subfields’
it is also less easy to uniquely identify information resources” (Coleman). This
can be seen in the way the above records show edition. The MARC record has a
clear, definable tag for edition, where the DC record is slightly vague when it
shows “VerionOf” and “HasVersion”. This was the only field I found difficulty
in describing using the DC standards. For the DC record I had to do some
digging, where the MARC record for version was clearly defined.
Analysis
of Bibliographic Records
Metadata
The
simplest definition of metadata is “data about data”. For the purpose of this
paper I will work with Howarth’s definition that “metadata is the sum total of
what one can say about any information object at any level of aggregation.” From
the MARC and DC records found in this paper one can see this definition at play.
These records work to bring the sum total of information together to form a
complete bibliographic record that will give the end-user the most complete
information about the object. It can be said, “at the system level, metadata
can be used to facilitate interoperability and the ability to share among
resource discovery tools…at the end-user level, metadata can facilitate the
ability to determine what data are available; whether they meet specific needs;
how to acquire them; and how to transfer them to a local system” (Howarth).
From this, we can see the importance of good metadata. “Poorly created metadata
records result in poor retrieval and limit accessibility to collections,
ultimately exercising a detrimental impact on the continuing adoption and use of
a digital library” (Yasser). Without clean and concise metadata, the end-user
could lose accessibility to items valuable to their research.
Creating
metadata that adheres to standards and a set of vocabularies will enhance said
metadata and ensure usability between different systems. Clear and concise
metadata will create multiple access points that a user can search by to find a
particular resource (Yasser). “Resource description should be consistent” (Coleman)
in order for this type of clarity to happen.
Access
Points and Authority Control
An access point is a word or phrase we search by in a
retrieval system to find certain types of data related to our search (Taylor
and Joudrey 441). “The access point has two basic functions. It enables the
catalogue to find the record and it groups together records sharing a common
characteristic” (Gorman). These functions helps the end-user by giving them the
availability to do a specific search while providing them with like objects
that could aid in furthering their research.
“Authority control is a mechanism for creating
consistency in online systems and for allowing greater precision and better
recall in searching” (Taylor and Joudrey 187). When you consider the need for
clean and concise metadata and combine that need with authority control it is
then that you begin working towards the goal of accessibility. In order to
create this clear and concise metadata one must follow a set of standards and
guidelines. Adhering to this will allow access points to do their job. “Cataloging cannot exist without standardized
access points, and authority control is the mechanism by which we achieve the
necessary degree of standardization. Cataloging deals with order, logic,
objectivity, precise denotation and consistency, and must have mechanisms to
ensure these attributes” (Gorman).
Bibliographic
Control
“Dedicated to the creation of [bibliographic records]…the
theory and practice of bibliographic control has focused on systematic, uniform
and consistent approaches to describing intellectual or artistic content and
physical characteristics” (Howarth). The design of bibliographic control is to
adhere to a set of standards in order to facilitate access to the items the
end-user is attempting to get to (Howarth). In Howarth’s article “Metadata and
Bibliographic Control: Soul-mates or Two Solitudes?” it is determined these two
entities work together. Without bibliographic control we are left with metadata
that may or may not lead the end-user to what they are searching for. Yet, if
you combine clear and concise metadata with the standards adhered to through
bibliographic control, what one is left with is consistency. Coyle points to
this as well stating, “what library cataloging and catalogs provide is a high
degree of conformity in the data captured in the records. This conformity is a
service to users, who can move from one library to another comfortably.”
Interoperability
Once the goal of accessibility is met, the next goal
should be interoperability – where a user can move easily from one system to
another without feeling as though they have no understanding of the information
they receive. “Without agreement on standards, without consistent approaches,
sharing information would be a laborious mapping process and users would be
presented time and again with new and conflicting information on nonstandard
interfaces” (Allinson). It is of vital importance that standards be adhered to
in order to reach the end goals of accessibility and interoperability. Data
sharing will only be successful if metadata is taken from “complete and
consistent resource description” (Park et al.). If there is an inconsistency in
the metadata provided this will lead to difficulties in finding accurate
information amongst different repositories (Allinson).
Using
MARC and DC to Meet These Needs
MARC
“As
with most standards, there are both strengths and weaknesses associated with
MARC. Strengths include the fact MARC is a mature standard…weaknesses include
the fact that MARC is virtually unknown outside of libraries” (Taylor and
Joudrey 141). The strength of MARC is its longevity. Having been around for
quite some time it has made its impression on the librarian profession and is
well known for its ability to describe, in great detail, an information object.
The weakness stated above reminds those who are comfortable and familiar with
MARC it is a standard that has difficulty translating into other information
fields.
DC
Dublin
Core standards are slightly easier to understand than the more detailed and
complex nature of MARC. Though it is simplistic in nature, with its 15
elements, it is not without its problems. “Conceptual ambiguities and semantic
overlaps underlying the DC semantics were responsible for various
interpretations of DC elements resulting in their incorrect application”
(Yasser). Without a strong understanding of the DC elements, one is left to
self-interpretation which results in various information output. This ambiguity
leads to confusion for the end-user. If the elements are not used in the
appropriate manner this will lead to sloppy metadata and make it nearly
impossible to find accurate information (Yasser).
Which
One to Use
“For digital resources to be included in the library
catalog integrating new metadata standards such as DC with older standards such
as MARC…is necessary” (Coleman). There has to be a merging of both the old and
the new in order to accurately and comprehensively describe the information
objects that end-users are trying to obtain. What has to be taken into
consideration is how information professionals can continue to enhance their
knowledge of these standards. When there is an understanding of the issues that
can arise within metadata records it helps to prepare information professionals
on how to be proactive in preventative measures (Yasser). Knowing there are
ambiguities within the creation of bibliographic records one can see there “is
the need for the cataloguer to be able to negotiate these ambiguities by
exercising skill, good judgment and the fruits of experience” (Gorman).
“The
pace of change in the metadata environment creates an increased demand for
continuing education programs that are designed to allow cataloging and
metadata professionals to stay up-to-date with current and emerging standards
and technologies for describing networked and digital resources” (Park et al.).
Making sure that information professionals are able to stay current in metadata
standards will serve to ensure that there is accurate and comprehensive
metadata. If those who create and maintain metadata and bibliographic records
are given the means for professional development it will continue to increase
the clear and concise metadata needed for accessibility by the end use.
Conclusion
What can be concluded
from this paper is in order to ensure accessibility for the end-user there must
be clear and concise metadata. In order to ensure clear and concise metadata
there has to be an application of standards amongst information professionals.
And in order to ensure an application of standards amongst information
professionals there must be a source of continuing education to maintain a
working knowledge of current standards and technologies. Understanding both
MARC and DC will help to create a more comprehensive set of standards to work
with. It is through this understanding we can hope to meet our goal of
accessibility.
Works
Cited
Allinson,
Julie. “Describing Scholarly Works with Dublin Core: A Functional Approach.” Library Trends 57.2 (2008): 221-43.
Electronic.
Coleman,
Anita S. “From Cataloging to Metadata: Dublin Core Records for the Library
Catalog.” Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly 40.3-4 (2005):153-81. Electronic.
Coyle,
Karen. “Understanding Metadata and Its Purpose.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31.2 (2005): 160-3. Electronic.
Gorman,
Michael. “Authority Control in the Context of Bibliographic Control in the
Electronic Environment.” Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly 38.3-4 (2004): 11-22. Electronic.
Howarth,
Lynne C. “Metadata and Bibliographic Control: Soul-Mates or Two Solitudes?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
40.3-4 (2005): 37-56. Electronic.
Library
of Congress. U.S. Govt. 6 November 2011 <http://www.loc.gov/>.
Park,
Jung-ran, Tosaka, Y., Maszaros, S., and Caimei, L. “From Metadata Creation to
Metadata Quality Control: Continuing Education Needs Among Cataloging and
Metadata Professionals.” Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science 51.3 (2010):158-76.
Electronic.
Taylor,
Arlene G. and Daniel N. Joudrey. The
Organization of Information. 3rd ed. Connecticut: Libraries
Unlimited, 2009. Print.
Yasser,
Chuttur M. “An Analysis of Problems in Metadata Records.” Journal of Library Metadata 11.2 (2011): 51-62. Electronic.
