Cataloging Standards
6,906 views
20 slides
Nov 06, 2011
Slide 1 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
About This Presentation
This is a group paper for LBSC690 at UMCP in December 2010.
Slide Content
1
Cataloging Standards
LBSC 670
Izzy Bae, Laurian Douthett and Katie Seeler
12/09/10
Cataloging Standards
LBSC 670
Izzy Bae, Laurian Douthett and Katie Seeler
12/09/10
2
Introduction
Humans, as information seeking creatures, have the innate capacity to consume,
store, and interpret vast amounts of data. In order to retrieve this information more
efficiently, people have developed different methods to organize information over thousands
of years. While the format of accumulated materials has changed, the basic issue of how to
organize the information remains the same.
This paper seeks to examine the status and role of some of the most prominent
cataloging theories and models found in library science: Anglo American Cataloging Rules
(AACR2), Resource Description and Access (RDA), Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR), and Dublin Core. The following sections look at the past,
present, and future of cataloging standards and metadata. This work compares scholarly
literature to results from a questionnaire posed to various librarians in the field. The intention
is to formulate a better understanding of implications these changes will have for the library
profession.
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR)
AACR2 is arguably the most well-known term in library science, which is
understandable considering its significant impact on other aspects of libraries. These
cataloging rules were first published in 1967 and have undergone several revisions since its
initial publication. In order to more fully understand the structure of AACR2 and its
limitations, it is important to know how it came into existence.
Antonio Panizzi, Charles Cutter, S.R. Ranganathan, and Seymour Lubestzky are four
individuals who have strongly impacted library cataloging. Before the contributions of these
information professionals, there was limited standardization and internationalization of
cataloging codes. Prior to the early twentieth century, cataloging codes centered around a
handful of very large libraries. Examples include the British Museum rules, the Bodleian
rules, and the Bibliothèque Nationale rules.1
Panizzi was instrumental in the development of the British Museum rules. Hired as
Assistant Keeper in the Department of Printed Books in 1831, Panizzi would go on to become
Principal Librarian in 1856. The British Museum Library was in a severe state of disarray when
Panizzi arrived. After years of debate on the direction to take the library, Panizzi convinced the
museum’s trustees that it was best to design an author catalog with a subject index instead of a classed
catalog. When faced with criticism by those who thought a catalog to simply be a list of titles, Panizzi
1William Warner Bishop, “J. C. M. Hanson and International Cataloging,” The Library Quarterly 4, no. 2 (Apr.,
1934), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302059 (accessed December 9, 2010)
Introduction
Humans, as information seeking creatures, have the innate capacity to consume,
store, and interpret vast amounts of data. In order to retrieve this information more
efficiently, people have developed different methods to organize information over thousands
of years. While the format of accumulated materials has changed, the basic issue of how to
organize the information remains the same.
This paper seeks to examine the status and role of some of the most prominent
cataloging theories and models found in library science: Anglo American Cataloging Rules
(AACR2), Resource Description and Access (RDA), Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR), and Dublin Core. The following sections look at the past,
present, and future of cataloging standards and metadata. This work compares scholarly
literature to results from a questionnaire posed to various librarians in the field. The intention
is to formulate a better understanding of implications these changes will have for the library
profession.
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR)
AACR2 is arguably the most well-known term in library science, which is
understandable considering its significant impact on other aspects of libraries. These
cataloging rules were first published in 1967 and have undergone several revisions since its
initial publication. In order to more fully understand the structure of AACR2 and its
limitations, it is important to know how it came into existence.
Antonio Panizzi, Charles Cutter, S.R. Ranganathan, and Seymour Lubestzky are four
individuals who have strongly impacted library cataloging. Before the contributions of these
information professionals, there was limited standardization and internationalization of
cataloging codes. Prior to the early twentieth century, cataloging codes centered around a
handful of very large libraries. Examples include the British Museum rules, the Bodleian
rules, and the Bibliothèque Nationale rules.1
Panizzi was instrumental in the development of the British Museum rules. Hired as
Assistant Keeper in the Department of Printed Books in 1831, Panizzi would go on to become
Principal Librarian in 1856. The British Museum Library was in a severe state of disarray when
Panizzi arrived. After years of debate on the direction to take the library, Panizzi convinced the
museum’s trustees that it was best to design an author catalog with a subject index instead of a classed
catalog. When faced with criticism by those who thought a catalog to simply be a list of titles, Panizzi
1William Warner Bishop, “J. C. M. Hanson and International Cataloging,” The Library Quarterly 4, no. 2 (Apr.,
1934), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302059 (accessed December 9, 2010)
3
argued that “a reader may know the work he requires; but he cannot be expected to know all the
peculiarities of different editions, and this information he has a right to expect from the catalogues.”2
Collaborating with librarians around the United Kingdom, Panizzi composed Rules for the
Compilation of the Catalogue, now commonly referred to as his “famous 91 rules.” Museum trustees
approved the standards in 1839 and were first printed in 1841.3 The rules focused primarily on author
and title entries, but also included instructions for descriptive cataloging and filing. Donald J. Lehnus
contends that half of the “ideas and principles laid down by Panizzi are incorporated into [the 1967
version of] AACR.”4 While the rules have been clarified over time, Panizzi’s basic principles
of user needs, idea of the “work,” and standardization are still very relevant today.
Charles Cutter is probably best remembered for the Cutter numbers used in the
Library of Congress Classification. These numbers help form individual call numbers for
different books on the same subject. But it is his Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue
(later Rules for a Dictionary Catalog), published in 1876, that influenced AACR and later
FRBR. A dictionary catalog lists materials by author, title, and subject in a single
alphabetically sorted list. In other words, it is possible to find all books both by and about an
individual.5
Cutter outlines what a catalog is used for and how it should work during the
“General Remarks” preceding the rules. Cutter’s objects reflect his concern for user needs
and formed the basis for subsequent library catalogs with the following core tenets:
• to enable a person to find a book of which the author, title, or subject is
known,
• to show what a library has by a given author, on a given subject, and/or in a
given literature, and
• to assist in the choice of a book as to its edition (bibliographically) and/or as
to its character (literary or topical).6
Shortly after Cutter published Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue, the
American Library Association started work on a standard cataloging code for libraries in the
United States; Britain undertook efforts around the same time. These efforts never fully
succeeded and in 1900, the ALA started to actively pursue standardization again.7 Melvil
Dewey suggested in 1902 that the ALA should join forces with the British to produce an
Anglo-American code as the British were also still embroiled in efforts to standardize a
2 William Denton, Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval. Ed. Arlene G. Taylor.
(Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, 2007), 38-9.
3Julia Pettee, “The Development of Authorship Entry and the Formulation of Authorship Rules as Found in the
Anglo-American Code,” The Library Quarterly 6 no. 3. (Jul., 1936), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302278
(accessed December 9, 2010). 4 Donald J. Lehnus, “A Comparison of Panizzi’s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967,” Occasional Papers No. 105
(Dec., 1972): 37.
5 Denton, 40.
6 Ibid., 40-41.
7 Ibid., 43.
argued that “a reader may know the work he requires; but he cannot be expected to know all the
peculiarities of different editions, and this information he has a right to expect from the catalogues.”2
Collaborating with librarians around the United Kingdom, Panizzi composed Rules for the
Compilation of the Catalogue, now commonly referred to as his “famous 91 rules.” Museum trustees
approved the standards in 1839 and were first printed in 1841.3 The rules focused primarily on author
and title entries, but also included instructions for descriptive cataloging and filing. Donald J. Lehnus
contends that half of the “ideas and principles laid down by Panizzi are incorporated into [the 1967
version of] AACR.”4 While the rules have been clarified over time, Panizzi’s basic principles
of user needs, idea of the “work,” and standardization are still very relevant today.
Charles Cutter is probably best remembered for the Cutter numbers used in the
Library of Congress Classification. These numbers help form individual call numbers for
different books on the same subject. But it is his Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue
(later Rules for a Dictionary Catalog), published in 1876, that influenced AACR and later
FRBR. A dictionary catalog lists materials by author, title, and subject in a single
alphabetically sorted list. In other words, it is possible to find all books both by and about an
individual.5
Cutter outlines what a catalog is used for and how it should work during the
“General Remarks” preceding the rules. Cutter’s objects reflect his concern for user needs
and formed the basis for subsequent library catalogs with the following core tenets:
• to enable a person to find a book of which the author, title, or subject is
known,
• to show what a library has by a given author, on a given subject, and/or in a
given literature, and
• to assist in the choice of a book as to its edition (bibliographically) and/or as
to its character (literary or topical).6
Shortly after Cutter published Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue, the
American Library Association started work on a standard cataloging code for libraries in the
United States; Britain undertook efforts around the same time. These efforts never fully
succeeded and in 1900, the ALA started to actively pursue standardization again.7 Melvil
Dewey suggested in 1902 that the ALA should join forces with the British to produce an
Anglo-American code as the British were also still embroiled in efforts to standardize a
2 William Denton, Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval. Ed. Arlene G. Taylor.
(Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, 2007), 38-9.
3Julia Pettee, “The Development of Authorship Entry and the Formulation of Authorship Rules as Found in the
Anglo-American Code,” The Library Quarterly 6 no. 3. (Jul., 1936), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302278
(accessed December 9, 2010). 4 Donald J. Lehnus, “A Comparison of Panizzi’s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967,” Occasional Papers No. 105
(Dec., 1972): 37.
5 Denton, 40.
6 Ibid., 40-41.
7 Ibid., 43.
4
cataloging code. The ALA and the Library Association formally agreed to cooperate in
1904.8
This partnership resulted in the first international code which was published in 1908
in two separate editions: Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries for the United States and
Cataloging Rules, Author and Title Entries for Britain. Both editions contained 174 rules
covering both entry and heading for authors and titles and description. Disagreement
centered on authors and publications that changed names or titles. The groups explained the
disputes in notes or simply printed two versions of the rule in contention.9 This first set of
Anglo-American cataloging rules drew strongly on the works of Panizzi and Cutter.10
S.R. Ranganathan contributed to the development of cataloging in many ways,
notably inventing faceted classification. But it is Ranganathan’s five laws of library science
that are particularly influential on both AACR and FRBR. Ranganathan combined his laws
with Cutter’s rules in his 1935 publication Classified Catalogue Code to redefine user needs.
He argues that library catalogs should be designed with the abilities to “… [d]isclose to every
reader his or her document; [s]ecure for every document its reader; [s]ave the time of the
reader; and for this purpose [s]ave the time of the staff.”11 While these ideas are not
explicitly laid out in AACR or FRBR, they are seen in the efforts to increase the ways in
which people can utilize the catalog.12
Seymour Lubetzky strove to simplify cataloging rules and focus on basic principles
as seen in his seminal work Cataloging Rules and Principles. The 1953 publication followed
his critique of the 1949 A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries and Rules for
Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress. Lubetzky felt that both sets of rules were
complex and did not rely enough on basic principles, instead prescribing exhaustive rules
based on individual cases.13
Denton maintains that Lubetzky’s work “…was key to the wording of the Paris
Principles, the common name for the Statement of Principles passed at the International
Conference on cataloging Principles in that city in 1961.”14 53 countries and 12 international
organizations met at this conference to examine the choice and form of headings in
author/title catalogues. This group managed to compose a five page statement of 12
principles known as the Paris Principles. These later formed the basis for the first Anglo-
8 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
9 Ibid.
10 Denton, 43.
11 Ibid., 45 12 Ibid., 44.
13 Michael Gorman, Commemorating the Past, Celebrating the Present, Creating the Future: Papers in
Observance of the 50th Anniversary of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, ed. Pamela
Bluh. (Chicago, American Library Association, 2007) , 61-62.
14 Denton, 46.
cataloging code. The ALA and the Library Association formally agreed to cooperate in
1904.8
This partnership resulted in the first international code which was published in 1908
in two separate editions: Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries for the United States and
Cataloging Rules, Author and Title Entries for Britain. Both editions contained 174 rules
covering both entry and heading for authors and titles and description. Disagreement
centered on authors and publications that changed names or titles. The groups explained the
disputes in notes or simply printed two versions of the rule in contention.9 This first set of
Anglo-American cataloging rules drew strongly on the works of Panizzi and Cutter.10
S.R. Ranganathan contributed to the development of cataloging in many ways,
notably inventing faceted classification. But it is Ranganathan’s five laws of library science
that are particularly influential on both AACR and FRBR. Ranganathan combined his laws
with Cutter’s rules in his 1935 publication Classified Catalogue Code to redefine user needs.
He argues that library catalogs should be designed with the abilities to “… [d]isclose to every
reader his or her document; [s]ecure for every document its reader; [s]ave the time of the
reader; and for this purpose [s]ave the time of the staff.”11 While these ideas are not
explicitly laid out in AACR or FRBR, they are seen in the efforts to increase the ways in
which people can utilize the catalog.12
Seymour Lubetzky strove to simplify cataloging rules and focus on basic principles
as seen in his seminal work Cataloging Rules and Principles. The 1953 publication followed
his critique of the 1949 A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries and Rules for
Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress. Lubetzky felt that both sets of rules were
complex and did not rely enough on basic principles, instead prescribing exhaustive rules
based on individual cases.13
Denton maintains that Lubetzky’s work “…was key to the wording of the Paris
Principles, the common name for the Statement of Principles passed at the International
Conference on cataloging Principles in that city in 1961.”14 53 countries and 12 international
organizations met at this conference to examine the choice and form of headings in
author/title catalogues. This group managed to compose a five page statement of 12
principles known as the Paris Principles. These later formed the basis for the first Anglo-
8 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
9 Ibid.
10 Denton, 43.
11 Ibid., 45 12 Ibid., 44.
13 Michael Gorman, Commemorating the Past, Celebrating the Present, Creating the Future: Papers in
Observance of the 50th Anniversary of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, ed. Pamela
Bluh. (Chicago, American Library Association, 2007) , 61-62.
14 Denton, 46.
5
American Cataloging Rules (AACR).15 The Paris Principles are of such continuing
importance that the International Federation of Library Institutions and Associations (IFLA)
is attempting to adapt them to accommodate present and future advances in technology.16
The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules finally debuted in 1967 with 126 rules for
entry comprised of 500 provisions. A reviewer of the publication notes that the AACR was
not shorter or simpler after 15 years of effort, but infinitely more logical and organized than
the ALA rules. Tate credits Lubetzky “…for the excellent job of deriving the underlying
principles and of synthesizing into a system the fragmented rules of the ALA code.”17
Michael Gorman levied several criticisms of the original AACR from a personal
perspective. Among other disparagements, he argued that the “… 1967 rules retained many
of the outmoded practices and distinctions against which Lubetzky had raged war” and that
description rules remained too focused on books and inflexible to the variety of other types of
media. Gorman believed that AACR was incapable of responding to the changing
international bibliographic cooperative community, MARC records, and library automation.18
With the desire to keep improving cataloging rules, a program of International
Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) was developed at the International Meeting of
Cataloging Experts in Copenhagen in 1969.19 According to Gorman, the basic ideas behind
ISBD “were that the main parts of the bibliographic description (the areas in ISBD) and the
parts of those areas (the elements) would be given in an internationally agreed order and set
off and delineated by distinctive punctuation. ISBD also prescribed standard international
abbreviations.”20
The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) was established in
1974. Primarily tasked with incorporating the North American and British texts into a single
version, the JSC appointed two editors for the revised code, Michael Gorman of the British
Library and Paul W. Winkler of the Library of Congress. JSC members stemmed from the
American Library Association, the British Library, the Canadian Library Association
(represented by the Canadian Committee on Cataloging), the Library Association, and the
Library of Congress.21
When the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) emerged in
1978, it was split into two sections: description and entry and heading. AACR had an
15 Ibid, 47.
16 Barbara Tillett, ed., IFLA Cataloging Principles: Steps towards an International Cataloging Code, 2 (Munich:
K.G. Saur Verlag, 2005), 24.
17 Elizabeth L. Tate, Review: [untitled], The Library Quarterly, 37, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), p 394
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4305825 (accessed December 9, 2010).
18 Gorman, 62.
19 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
20 Gorman, 65.
21 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
American Cataloging Rules (AACR).15 The Paris Principles are of such continuing
importance that the International Federation of Library Institutions and Associations (IFLA)
is attempting to adapt them to accommodate present and future advances in technology.16
The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules finally debuted in 1967 with 126 rules for
entry comprised of 500 provisions. A reviewer of the publication notes that the AACR was
not shorter or simpler after 15 years of effort, but infinitely more logical and organized than
the ALA rules. Tate credits Lubetzky “…for the excellent job of deriving the underlying
principles and of synthesizing into a system the fragmented rules of the ALA code.”17
Michael Gorman levied several criticisms of the original AACR from a personal
perspective. Among other disparagements, he argued that the “… 1967 rules retained many
of the outmoded practices and distinctions against which Lubetzky had raged war” and that
description rules remained too focused on books and inflexible to the variety of other types of
media. Gorman believed that AACR was incapable of responding to the changing
international bibliographic cooperative community, MARC records, and library automation.18
With the desire to keep improving cataloging rules, a program of International
Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) was developed at the International Meeting of
Cataloging Experts in Copenhagen in 1969.19 According to Gorman, the basic ideas behind
ISBD “were that the main parts of the bibliographic description (the areas in ISBD) and the
parts of those areas (the elements) would be given in an internationally agreed order and set
off and delineated by distinctive punctuation. ISBD also prescribed standard international
abbreviations.”20
The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) was established in
1974. Primarily tasked with incorporating the North American and British texts into a single
version, the JSC appointed two editors for the revised code, Michael Gorman of the British
Library and Paul W. Winkler of the Library of Congress. JSC members stemmed from the
American Library Association, the British Library, the Canadian Library Association
(represented by the Canadian Committee on Cataloging), the Library Association, and the
Library of Congress.21
When the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) emerged in
1978, it was split into two sections: description and entry and heading. AACR had an
15 Ibid, 47.
16 Barbara Tillett, ed., IFLA Cataloging Principles: Steps towards an International Cataloging Code, 2 (Munich:
K.G. Saur Verlag, 2005), 24.
17 Elizabeth L. Tate, Review: [untitled], The Library Quarterly, 37, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), p 394
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4305825 (accessed December 9, 2010).
18 Gorman, 62.
19 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
20 Gorman, 65.
21 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
6
additional section for non-book materials which was incorporated into the description section.
This section was based on the ISBD (G) framework and included a general chapter, chapters
for individual formats, and new chapters for machine-readable data files and three-
dimensional artifacts.22
Three major revisions of AACR2 followed in 1988, 1998, and 2002. The 1988
edition of AACR2 incorporated the 1982, 1983, and 1985 revisions in addition to subsequent
unpublished revisions. The 1998 version incorporated the 1993 amendments as well as
revisions approved between 1992 and 1996. Amendments in 2001 included a complete
revision of chapter 9 which was renamed “Electronic Resources.” The final revised edition
of AACR2 in 2002 incorporated the 1999 and 2001 amendments and changes approved in
2001. Some of these changes included complete revisions of chapter 3 (Cartographic
Materials) and chapter 12 being renamed to “Continuing Resources.” The revision of chapter
12 originates from a recommendation of the International Conference on the Principles and
Future Development of AACR and IFLA-led efforts to harmonize ISBD (CR), ISSN practice,
and AACR2.23
Jones and Carr attribute the changing nature of library collections and creation of the
FRBR model to the planned publication of AACR3 in 2007. The proposed changes included
new introductions to Parts I and II, incorporation of FRBR concepts and terminology,
integration of authority control, and the elimination of various inconsistent, ambiguous, and
redundant rules. Critics of the draft version declared that “more far-reaching changes were
necessary to reflect the digital world that libraries were entering.” This eventually led to
plans to develop an entirely “new” code: RDA (Resource Description and Access) with the
intention that its structure would be better aligned with FRBR, have a more user-friendly
layout, and have a clear division that separates the recording of data from its presentation.24
It is interesting to note that not everyone agrees that RDA differs enough from AACR2. One
of the questionnaire respondents is the Associate Director for Collections and Technical
Services at an academic library in Florida. When asked if she would have preferred that JSC
create a new version of AACR2 than RDA, she replied “Actually, I think RDA is a little too
wedded to AACR2. I wish the JSC had started with a blank slate and created
something truly new and innovative.”
Concurrent to the revisions of AACR2, the IFLA was interested in studying the
functions and purpose of the bibliographic record. The IFLA convened in Sweden in 1990
with the intentions of reaching an agreement on the nature and core components of the
bibliographic record. Additionally, they looked at the ways bibliographic records impact
users’ searches for information but developed nothing concrete until 1998. Today’s library
professionals are still trying to understand the implications of that initial study, as it is clear
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ed Jones and Patrick Carr, “The Shape of Things to Come,” The Serials Librarian, 52 no. 3 (2007), 283.
additional section for non-book materials which was incorporated into the description section.
This section was based on the ISBD (G) framework and included a general chapter, chapters
for individual formats, and new chapters for machine-readable data files and three-
dimensional artifacts.22
Three major revisions of AACR2 followed in 1988, 1998, and 2002. The 1988
edition of AACR2 incorporated the 1982, 1983, and 1985 revisions in addition to subsequent
unpublished revisions. The 1998 version incorporated the 1993 amendments as well as
revisions approved between 1992 and 1996. Amendments in 2001 included a complete
revision of chapter 9 which was renamed “Electronic Resources.” The final revised edition
of AACR2 in 2002 incorporated the 1999 and 2001 amendments and changes approved in
2001. Some of these changes included complete revisions of chapter 3 (Cartographic
Materials) and chapter 12 being renamed to “Continuing Resources.” The revision of chapter
12 originates from a recommendation of the International Conference on the Principles and
Future Development of AACR and IFLA-led efforts to harmonize ISBD (CR), ISSN practice,
and AACR2.23
Jones and Carr attribute the changing nature of library collections and creation of the
FRBR model to the planned publication of AACR3 in 2007. The proposed changes included
new introductions to Parts I and II, incorporation of FRBR concepts and terminology,
integration of authority control, and the elimination of various inconsistent, ambiguous, and
redundant rules. Critics of the draft version declared that “more far-reaching changes were
necessary to reflect the digital world that libraries were entering.” This eventually led to
plans to develop an entirely “new” code: RDA (Resource Description and Access) with the
intention that its structure would be better aligned with FRBR, have a more user-friendly
layout, and have a clear division that separates the recording of data from its presentation.24
It is interesting to note that not everyone agrees that RDA differs enough from AACR2. One
of the questionnaire respondents is the Associate Director for Collections and Technical
Services at an academic library in Florida. When asked if she would have preferred that JSC
create a new version of AACR2 than RDA, she replied “Actually, I think RDA is a little too
wedded to AACR2. I wish the JSC had started with a blank slate and created
something truly new and innovative.”
Concurrent to the revisions of AACR2, the IFLA was interested in studying the
functions and purpose of the bibliographic record. The IFLA convened in Sweden in 1990
with the intentions of reaching an agreement on the nature and core components of the
bibliographic record. Additionally, they looked at the ways bibliographic records impact
users’ searches for information but developed nothing concrete until 1998. Today’s library
professionals are still trying to understand the implications of that initial study, as it is clear
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ed Jones and Patrick Carr, “The Shape of Things to Come,” The Serials Librarian, 52 no. 3 (2007), 283.
7
that the results from this study are here to stay. Further discussion will explain the basic
concepts emphasized in that study, which led to the development of the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records.
FRBR
Information can be seen as an entity with no boundaries. The systems and web-
based environments that now produce a majority of the information available today is unfixed
in nature. Not only does it lack the physical object sense it may have had before, but unless it
is printed onto paper and reproduced in physical form, it exists purely in the digital realm.
Bruce Dearstyne gets at this idea when he speaks of a “record.”25 This idea can similarly be
applied to the information extracted from the age of web 2.0. Its importance underlies the
fact that library professionals and catalogers alike are currently being challenged by the
process of identifying and describing unstable internet resources.
Technology changes and evolves in combination with the human thought. In the last
decade a milestone has been reached in which people are unable to keep up the resources
available to them.26 At the heart of the problem is the deficient ability to provide better
access to information while being inundated with a proliferation of internet-based resources.
It is critical to not only remember past description standards of books, but to analyze the
current issues that plague the information world in order to successfully establish effective
models for the future.
It must now be recognized that the field needs to radically change and realize its
potential in describing “information.” This idea has allowed Google to surpass any search
engine in use and is reflected in the astounding figure that 34,000 searches are made on
Google per second!27 In terms of library cataloging structures, the creators of the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records definitively have the “Google” effect in mind.
The following description of FRBR is meant to demonstrate a student understanding
and simplified interpretation of the abstract theory. FRBR is a “conceptual model for the
bibliographic universe.”28 For example, FRBR demonstrates relationships between items,
simplifies the bibliographic universe, and provides a conceptual framework for increased
accuracy and description of materials.29 A product of literature review and research, it is
25 Bruce Dearstyne, “Leadership and Management of Records and Information Programs: Issues and Strategies,”
Records & Information Management Report 16 No.3 (March 2000), 2.
26 Ibid, 2.
27 Matt McGee, comment on “By the Numbers: Twitter v. Facebook v. Google Buzz,” Blog, posted February
23, 2010, http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709 (accessed
December 9, 2010).
28 What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model of the Bibliographic Universe Cataloging Distribution Service, “What
is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for of the Bibliographic Universe,” Library of Congress,
http://www.loc.gov/cds/products/product.php?productID=86 (accessed December 9, 2010).
29 Allyson Carlyle, “Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR and the Bibliographic Universe,”
that the results from this study are here to stay. Further discussion will explain the basic
concepts emphasized in that study, which led to the development of the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records.
FRBR
Information can be seen as an entity with no boundaries. The systems and web-
based environments that now produce a majority of the information available today is unfixed
in nature. Not only does it lack the physical object sense it may have had before, but unless it
is printed onto paper and reproduced in physical form, it exists purely in the digital realm.
Bruce Dearstyne gets at this idea when he speaks of a “record.”25 This idea can similarly be
applied to the information extracted from the age of web 2.0. Its importance underlies the
fact that library professionals and catalogers alike are currently being challenged by the
process of identifying and describing unstable internet resources.
Technology changes and evolves in combination with the human thought. In the last
decade a milestone has been reached in which people are unable to keep up the resources
available to them.26 At the heart of the problem is the deficient ability to provide better
access to information while being inundated with a proliferation of internet-based resources.
It is critical to not only remember past description standards of books, but to analyze the
current issues that plague the information world in order to successfully establish effective
models for the future.
It must now be recognized that the field needs to radically change and realize its
potential in describing “information.” This idea has allowed Google to surpass any search
engine in use and is reflected in the astounding figure that 34,000 searches are made on
Google per second!27 In terms of library cataloging structures, the creators of the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records definitively have the “Google” effect in mind.
The following description of FRBR is meant to demonstrate a student understanding
and simplified interpretation of the abstract theory. FRBR is a “conceptual model for the
bibliographic universe.”28 For example, FRBR demonstrates relationships between items,
simplifies the bibliographic universe, and provides a conceptual framework for increased
accuracy and description of materials.29 A product of literature review and research, it is
25 Bruce Dearstyne, “Leadership and Management of Records and Information Programs: Issues and Strategies,”
Records & Information Management Report 16 No.3 (March 2000), 2.
26 Ibid, 2.
27 Matt McGee, comment on “By the Numbers: Twitter v. Facebook v. Google Buzz,” Blog, posted February
23, 2010, http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709 (accessed
December 9, 2010).
28 What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model of the Bibliographic Universe Cataloging Distribution Service, “What
is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for of the Bibliographic Universe,” Library of Congress,
http://www.loc.gov/cds/products/product.php?productID=86 (accessed December 9, 2010).
29 Allyson Carlyle, “Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR and the Bibliographic Universe,”
8
apparent that there are many ways to understand FRBR through the potential benefits of the
process it aims to improve, yet it is so difficult to pinpoint a clear understanding of what it
exactly is. As derived from the literature and statements from the questionnaire, FRBR is a
framework and conceptual model.
A general definition assesses a conceptual model to be a “descriptive model of a
system based on qualitative assumptions about its elements, their interrelationships, and
system boundaries.”30 Per this basic definition, a conceptual model hypothesizes about the
essence of a system and the characteristics of elements and relationships that bind the system
together. Such models are typically helpful in database design to improve processes. Key to
a successful information system is the breakdown of difficult-to-comprehend concepts into a
simpler representation of a system, which is the purpose of using a conceptual model.31
Furthermore, the ultimate question asked should be: Has this new representation achieved the
status of satisfying its purpose, which is to improve the process of organizing and describing
information? With FRBR, this is yet to be determined.
Bringing the conceptual model back to the realm of the library profession, Patrick Le
Boeuf espouses that these models take on a function in a new environment to “provide a high
level view of the real life domain covered by bibliographic and museum databases.”32 To
fundamentally state the essence of the bibliographic model for the future, FRBR is a method
of making implicit bibliographic relationships clearly expressed. FRBR endeavors to link
similarly related concepts, objects, people, and events, as well as to establish various access
points for making information retrieval an accurate and satisfying user experience. It is a
way of breaking down, differentiating and analyzing the various components of information
that make up a resource regardless of format. Rather than thinking of information as being
embodied by physical objects, it takes the traditional resource and extracts the ideas and
concepts away from the physical product. It also covers the possible ways in which a user
might utilize a piece or type of information to retrieve further information in order to identify
what best represents the information the user is seeking. This break down of concepts results
in the extraction of entities which perform multiple functions.
In the FRBR model, the bibliographic universe is arranged by three types of
identifiable units of information. These distinct pieces of information are represented by the
Library Resources and Technical Services, 50 no.4 (October 2006), 264-265.
30 Businessdictionary.com, “conceptual model,” Businessdictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conceptual-model.html(accessed December 9, 2010).
31 Carlyle, 266.
32 Le Boeuf, Patrick, “…That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard
no more …”:the elements that should be accounted for in a conceptual model for
performing arts and the information relating to their archives,” (Paper given at the
workshop “De la conception à la survie: comment documenter et conserver les
productions du spectacle multimédia ?”on Friday 13 January 2006 in Paris).
apparent that there are many ways to understand FRBR through the potential benefits of the
process it aims to improve, yet it is so difficult to pinpoint a clear understanding of what it
exactly is. As derived from the literature and statements from the questionnaire, FRBR is a
framework and conceptual model.
A general definition assesses a conceptual model to be a “descriptive model of a
system based on qualitative assumptions about its elements, their interrelationships, and
system boundaries.”30 Per this basic definition, a conceptual model hypothesizes about the
essence of a system and the characteristics of elements and relationships that bind the system
together. Such models are typically helpful in database design to improve processes. Key to
a successful information system is the breakdown of difficult-to-comprehend concepts into a
simpler representation of a system, which is the purpose of using a conceptual model.31
Furthermore, the ultimate question asked should be: Has this new representation achieved the
status of satisfying its purpose, which is to improve the process of organizing and describing
information? With FRBR, this is yet to be determined.
Bringing the conceptual model back to the realm of the library profession, Patrick Le
Boeuf espouses that these models take on a function in a new environment to “provide a high
level view of the real life domain covered by bibliographic and museum databases.”32 To
fundamentally state the essence of the bibliographic model for the future, FRBR is a method
of making implicit bibliographic relationships clearly expressed. FRBR endeavors to link
similarly related concepts, objects, people, and events, as well as to establish various access
points for making information retrieval an accurate and satisfying user experience. It is a
way of breaking down, differentiating and analyzing the various components of information
that make up a resource regardless of format. Rather than thinking of information as being
embodied by physical objects, it takes the traditional resource and extracts the ideas and
concepts away from the physical product. It also covers the possible ways in which a user
might utilize a piece or type of information to retrieve further information in order to identify
what best represents the information the user is seeking. This break down of concepts results
in the extraction of entities which perform multiple functions.
In the FRBR model, the bibliographic universe is arranged by three types of
identifiable units of information. These distinct pieces of information are represented by the
Library Resources and Technical Services, 50 no.4 (October 2006), 264-265.
30 Businessdictionary.com, “conceptual model,” Businessdictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conceptual-model.html(accessed December 9, 2010).
31 Carlyle, 266.
32 Le Boeuf, Patrick, “…That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard
no more …”:the elements that should be accounted for in a conceptual model for
performing arts and the information relating to their archives,” (Paper given at the
workshop “De la conception à la survie: comment documenter et conserver les
productions du spectacle multimédia ?”on Friday 13 January 2006 in Paris).
9
term ‘entity’ and are subsequently referred to in discussions of the FRBR model. The entities
represent the pieces of information that emanate from both traditional and non-traditional
resources. “The [bibliographic] universe is characterized in terms of the entities within it and
the relationships that hold among them.”33 These relationships ultimately tie the related
concepts, ideas, and bibliographic items together on the screen for the user.
The three groups of entity categories begin with a foundational four-level
hierarchical structure. Group 1 entities encompass a spectrum of information pieces
stretching from the most abstract to the most concrete. For example “Work” is described as a
conceptual idea. Isolated from the resource, a work can be seen as a floating creation by the
author or inventor. As attributes are identified, the units gain more structure. “Expression” is
defined as “a class whose members are a realization of a single work…”34 The meaning of
“expression” can be reduced to a “fixed” idea not yet in a physical form yet. Between the
“work,” “expression,” “manifestation,” and “item,” there appears to be a clear division
between abstract and real. Finally, a manifestation attaches the conceptual to an actual form.
This form is a set of items in which “item” is the simplest concrete form of the original
abstract “work.”35
Group 2 and 3 entities have an equal role in the bibliographic framework, but have a
solid meaning in relation to the more abstract Group 1 entities. Group 2 entities include the
title of responsibility, or the creator of the information resource. There are three categories of
Group 2 entities: “Person,” “Corporate Body,” and “Family.” The third group of entities
consists of subjects. The linking factor of the group entities is that all Group 1 and Group 2
entities fall under the Group 3 category. All real and conceptual representations of physical
resources have a subject, as well as the creatorship contained in Group 2 entities. The
establishment of these entities in FRBR forms the core model of information upon which
researchers base their activities. It is possible to see the library model’s function through the
recently adopted term, “FRBRize.” FRBRizing allows for the making of relationships
between the entities as well as the creation of metadata, which fits into FRBR actual content.
As stated, FRBR is intended to improve the process of information retrieval for the
user. The culmination of the FRBR discussion is recognition of the four key user tasks which
allow for accurate information retrieval. The procedures described as follows will bring the
user a product: First, the user’s goal is to locate the entities (Work, Expression,
Manifestation, Item, Person, Corporate Body, Event, Object etc.). Next, the user is tasked
with identifying entities to evaluate if the entities produced through the search are relevant to
the user’s needs. Tasks three and four are ultimately to select the most appropriate entity and
33 Barbara Tillet, in FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed by Robert L. Maxwell, (Chicago: American Library
Association, 2008), 3.
34 http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html
35 Riley, Jenn, Techessence.info, “FRBR,” Techessence, http://techessence.info/frbr (accessed December 9,
2010).
term ‘entity’ and are subsequently referred to in discussions of the FRBR model. The entities
represent the pieces of information that emanate from both traditional and non-traditional
resources. “The [bibliographic] universe is characterized in terms of the entities within it and
the relationships that hold among them.”33 These relationships ultimately tie the related
concepts, ideas, and bibliographic items together on the screen for the user.
The three groups of entity categories begin with a foundational four-level
hierarchical structure. Group 1 entities encompass a spectrum of information pieces
stretching from the most abstract to the most concrete. For example “Work” is described as a
conceptual idea. Isolated from the resource, a work can be seen as a floating creation by the
author or inventor. As attributes are identified, the units gain more structure. “Expression” is
defined as “a class whose members are a realization of a single work…”34 The meaning of
“expression” can be reduced to a “fixed” idea not yet in a physical form yet. Between the
“work,” “expression,” “manifestation,” and “item,” there appears to be a clear division
between abstract and real. Finally, a manifestation attaches the conceptual to an actual form.
This form is a set of items in which “item” is the simplest concrete form of the original
abstract “work.”35
Group 2 and 3 entities have an equal role in the bibliographic framework, but have a
solid meaning in relation to the more abstract Group 1 entities. Group 2 entities include the
title of responsibility, or the creator of the information resource. There are three categories of
Group 2 entities: “Person,” “Corporate Body,” and “Family.” The third group of entities
consists of subjects. The linking factor of the group entities is that all Group 1 and Group 2
entities fall under the Group 3 category. All real and conceptual representations of physical
resources have a subject, as well as the creatorship contained in Group 2 entities. The
establishment of these entities in FRBR forms the core model of information upon which
researchers base their activities. It is possible to see the library model’s function through the
recently adopted term, “FRBRize.” FRBRizing allows for the making of relationships
between the entities as well as the creation of metadata, which fits into FRBR actual content.
As stated, FRBR is intended to improve the process of information retrieval for the
user. The culmination of the FRBR discussion is recognition of the four key user tasks which
allow for accurate information retrieval. The procedures described as follows will bring the
user a product: First, the user’s goal is to locate the entities (Work, Expression,
Manifestation, Item, Person, Corporate Body, Event, Object etc.). Next, the user is tasked
with identifying entities to evaluate if the entities produced through the search are relevant to
the user’s needs. Tasks three and four are ultimately to select the most appropriate entity and
33 Barbara Tillet, in FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed by Robert L. Maxwell, (Chicago: American Library
Association, 2008), 3.
34 http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html
35 Riley, Jenn, Techessence.info, “FRBR,” Techessence, http://techessence.info/frbr (accessed December 9,
2010).
10
to acquire the item, culminating the process that will bring a desired result to the user, patron,
or researcher.
FRBR is thought to transform not just the organization of records, but to help
provide search results more appropriate to the user’s needs. Based on comments provided
through both published works in the field and the project questionnaire, the assumption is that
most respondents are at least familiar with FRBR’s potential applications and recognize its
inevitable implementation. Most of the criticism levied thus far has been directed towards
RDA, which is in the process of testing and currently pending approval by the Joint Steering
Committee and the Library of Congress. RDA incorporates old traditions with new
modifications in its drive to provide more adequate search results as the successor to AACR2.
Many unanswered questions remain about the future of RDA. The significance of FRBR is
conclusively shown as a new way of thinking about the components of traditional books,
media, and digital resources and how they can be organized and arranged in a meaningful
way for the user. This effort will infuse standardized description to enhance the process. As
will be discussed, the process of reaching agreement on how description should be adapted to
the new environment through FRBR is difficult.
RDA: Resource Description and Access
RDA is a set of cataloging rules which guide the formulation of bibliographic
records in library catalogs. They stem from the current cataloging rules set forth through
AACR2. As mentioned previously, RDA followed the development of the FRBR model.
According to the Joint Steering Committee, author of the current RDA draft, the new
cataloging rules “define the scope and structure of RDA in relation to its underlying
conceptual models (FRBR and FRAD) and to two related metadata models (the DCMI
Abstract Model and The <indecs> Metadata Framework.”
The JSC intends for RDA to provide “…a flexible framework for describing all
resources – analog and digital, data that is readily adaptable to new and emerging database
structures, and data that is compatible with existing records in online library catalogues.”36 In
other words, RDA is intended to allow catalogers to create metadata records for current and
future resource types by employing principle-based rules without the need to re-catalog
existing records.37
Although RDA is still in the testing phase, some professionals are already looking
for ways to prepare catalogers for this change. Hitchens and Symons recommend
36 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
37 Hitchens and Symons, 692.
to acquire the item, culminating the process that will bring a desired result to the user, patron,
or researcher.
FRBR is thought to transform not just the organization of records, but to help
provide search results more appropriate to the user’s needs. Based on comments provided
through both published works in the field and the project questionnaire, the assumption is that
most respondents are at least familiar with FRBR’s potential applications and recognize its
inevitable implementation. Most of the criticism levied thus far has been directed towards
RDA, which is in the process of testing and currently pending approval by the Joint Steering
Committee and the Library of Congress. RDA incorporates old traditions with new
modifications in its drive to provide more adequate search results as the successor to AACR2.
Many unanswered questions remain about the future of RDA. The significance of FRBR is
conclusively shown as a new way of thinking about the components of traditional books,
media, and digital resources and how they can be organized and arranged in a meaningful
way for the user. This effort will infuse standardized description to enhance the process. As
will be discussed, the process of reaching agreement on how description should be adapted to
the new environment through FRBR is difficult.
RDA: Resource Description and Access
RDA is a set of cataloging rules which guide the formulation of bibliographic
records in library catalogs. They stem from the current cataloging rules set forth through
AACR2. As mentioned previously, RDA followed the development of the FRBR model.
According to the Joint Steering Committee, author of the current RDA draft, the new
cataloging rules “define the scope and structure of RDA in relation to its underlying
conceptual models (FRBR and FRAD) and to two related metadata models (the DCMI
Abstract Model and The <indecs> Metadata Framework.”
The JSC intends for RDA to provide “…a flexible framework for describing all
resources – analog and digital, data that is readily adaptable to new and emerging database
structures, and data that is compatible with existing records in online library catalogues.”36 In
other words, RDA is intended to allow catalogers to create metadata records for current and
future resource types by employing principle-based rules without the need to re-catalog
existing records.37
Although RDA is still in the testing phase, some professionals are already looking
for ways to prepare catalogers for this change. Hitchens and Symons recommend
36 Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief History of RDA,” Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
37 Hitchens and Symons, 692.
11
familiarizing catalogers with FRBR terminology and that trainers use a concrete example
such as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to demonstrate FRBR concepts.38
In addition to new vocabulary, catalogers are going to have to adjust to a different
layout of the rules. While chapters used to be based on format in AACR2, they will now be
based on the elements of description for each FRBR entity in RDA. Nor are the chapters
based on ISBD areas of description such as title and statement of responsibility area, edition
area, physical description area, etc in RDA. The entity sections are followed by sections
detailing how to record relationships.39
While some librarians eagerly await the switch to RDA, others are a little reluctant,
believing that the profession is not ready to take the step anytime soon. A technical services
librarian at a Washington, DC university library stated “I suspect it will be a good 5 years or
so before [RDA is implemented], and I think that OCLC and vendors will have to take the
lead to get recalcitrant librarians to use RDA.” This respondent goes on to state that “… as a
rule of thumb, the smaller the library (in terms of staff and holdings) the less likely these
discussions are to matter, at least at a day to day level.” His viewpoints echo the criticism of
other librarians – perceived/actual costs and benefits associated with changing to RDA,
which is more difficult for smaller institutions to enact.
Dublin Core
Separate from overarching cataloging standards such as AARC2 and RDA are what
are known as metadata standards. While cataloging deals with how to organize data,
metadata focuses on retrieval. The standards then try to cover how to describe data during
the organization process in order to make them easier to later find. A good way to think of
the difference is to imagine cataloging standards as the form to fill out, while metadata
schemes try to standardize how users fill the form out. For example, under “Address” an
expected input would be a street number followed by the street name – this sort of controlled
vocabulary is what is largely dealt with by metadata.
The most common standard has generally been MARC, which was designed by
Henriette Avram in the 1960s, but there are many others in use such as the National Library
of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings MeSH and the Library of Congress’s numerous
schemes for different types of collections. MARC is relatively simple in concept. Using
tags, fields, and a pre-determined list of tag ID numbers, it allows users to create entries for
data by choosing tags that would be used and filling in the given fields. Since becoming a
national and international standard in 1971 and 197340, MARC has been a staple metadata
38 Ibid., 695.
39 Ibid., 697-8.
40 "MARC Creator Henriette Avram Dies." ALA | Home - American Library Association. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/april2006ab/avram.cfm>.
familiarizing catalogers with FRBR terminology and that trainers use a concrete example
such as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to demonstrate FRBR concepts.38
In addition to new vocabulary, catalogers are going to have to adjust to a different
layout of the rules. While chapters used to be based on format in AACR2, they will now be
based on the elements of description for each FRBR entity in RDA. Nor are the chapters
based on ISBD areas of description such as title and statement of responsibility area, edition
area, physical description area, etc in RDA. The entity sections are followed by sections
detailing how to record relationships.39
While some librarians eagerly await the switch to RDA, others are a little reluctant,
believing that the profession is not ready to take the step anytime soon. A technical services
librarian at a Washington, DC university library stated “I suspect it will be a good 5 years or
so before [RDA is implemented], and I think that OCLC and vendors will have to take the
lead to get recalcitrant librarians to use RDA.” This respondent goes on to state that “… as a
rule of thumb, the smaller the library (in terms of staff and holdings) the less likely these
discussions are to matter, at least at a day to day level.” His viewpoints echo the criticism of
other librarians – perceived/actual costs and benefits associated with changing to RDA,
which is more difficult for smaller institutions to enact.
Dublin Core
Separate from overarching cataloging standards such as AARC2 and RDA are what
are known as metadata standards. While cataloging deals with how to organize data,
metadata focuses on retrieval. The standards then try to cover how to describe data during
the organization process in order to make them easier to later find. A good way to think of
the difference is to imagine cataloging standards as the form to fill out, while metadata
schemes try to standardize how users fill the form out. For example, under “Address” an
expected input would be a street number followed by the street name – this sort of controlled
vocabulary is what is largely dealt with by metadata.
The most common standard has generally been MARC, which was designed by
Henriette Avram in the 1960s, but there are many others in use such as the National Library
of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings MeSH and the Library of Congress’s numerous
schemes for different types of collections. MARC is relatively simple in concept. Using
tags, fields, and a pre-determined list of tag ID numbers, it allows users to create entries for
data by choosing tags that would be used and filling in the given fields. Since becoming a
national and international standard in 1971 and 197340, MARC has been a staple metadata
38 Ibid., 695.
39 Ibid., 697-8.
40 "MARC Creator Henriette Avram Dies." ALA | Home - American Library Association. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/april2006ab/avram.cfm>.
12
format in libraries, and has evolved into a relatively comprehensive and functional standard;
however its two primary limitations appear both in research and user surveys.
The first is that only libraries appear to use MARC41. This is significantly
problematic when considering that sources of information are increasingly coming from
outside of libraries, making the sharing of metadata incompatible. Second, not only is
working with the pre-determined list of tags unwieldy, but also limiting. Despite the
extensive list of tags and flexibility in choosing as many or as few tags as needed for any
piece of data, it is not comprehensive and will always be trying to catch up to newer
mediums. Additionally, in order to deal with a new medium, tags with more universal
applications may have to be created. This leads to a process in which the governing
committee must decide on how to deal with the new medium, to relay this decision to all
users of MARC, and how users should adapt to it.
A third much more recent, though minor, issue arising for MARC21 is that it covers
both the cataloging and metadata sides. Given the rise in prominence of FRBR, more
librarians are hoping to move to a metadata standard that works more in conjunction with
FRBR rather than one which, like MARC21, functions “in spite of” it. At the moment many
libraries still make heavy use of AACR2, but when more information centers move to new
standards (be it FRBR or something that might arise in the future), the more likely it is that
MARC21 will lose both its convenience and compatibility.
Facing retrieval issues, in October 1994, during the 2nd International World Wide
Web Conference, Yuri Rubinsky of SoftQuad, Stuart Weibel and Eric Miller of OCLC, Terry
Noreault of OCLC Office of Research, and Joseph Hardin of the National Center for
Supercomputer Applications had a hallway conversation about the difficulty of finding
resources on the web.42 In March 1995 the NCSA and OCLC proceeded to hold a joint
workshop on metadata semantics in Dublin, Ohio.43 This workshop, being the namesake of
the standard, outlined fifteen “core” sets of semantics for categorizing Web data. By 1998
these metadata elements would begin to garner serious consideration for standardization. In
July 1999, a group of technical experts would meet in Sante Fe to begin the Open Archives
Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), a forum to tackle the problems of
“multiple search interfaces making discovery harder, and [that] there was no machine-based
way of sharing the metadata.”44 By the time of OAI-PMH 1.0, Dublin Core was wide-spread
enough to be adopted as OAI-PMH’s metadata operability baseline which spearheaded
Dublin Core’s rapidly increasing momentum. Finally, in 2007, DC received ANSI/NISO and
41 Taylor, Arlene G., and Daniel N. Joudrey. The Organization of Information. Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited, 2009. 141. Print. 42 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://dublincore.org/about/history/>.
43 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
44 "2. History and Development of OAI-PMH." Open Archives Forum - Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.oaforum.org/tutorial/english/page2.htm>.
format in libraries, and has evolved into a relatively comprehensive and functional standard;
however its two primary limitations appear both in research and user surveys.
The first is that only libraries appear to use MARC41. This is significantly
problematic when considering that sources of information are increasingly coming from
outside of libraries, making the sharing of metadata incompatible. Second, not only is
working with the pre-determined list of tags unwieldy, but also limiting. Despite the
extensive list of tags and flexibility in choosing as many or as few tags as needed for any
piece of data, it is not comprehensive and will always be trying to catch up to newer
mediums. Additionally, in order to deal with a new medium, tags with more universal
applications may have to be created. This leads to a process in which the governing
committee must decide on how to deal with the new medium, to relay this decision to all
users of MARC, and how users should adapt to it.
A third much more recent, though minor, issue arising for MARC21 is that it covers
both the cataloging and metadata sides. Given the rise in prominence of FRBR, more
librarians are hoping to move to a metadata standard that works more in conjunction with
FRBR rather than one which, like MARC21, functions “in spite of” it. At the moment many
libraries still make heavy use of AACR2, but when more information centers move to new
standards (be it FRBR or something that might arise in the future), the more likely it is that
MARC21 will lose both its convenience and compatibility.
Facing retrieval issues, in October 1994, during the 2nd International World Wide
Web Conference, Yuri Rubinsky of SoftQuad, Stuart Weibel and Eric Miller of OCLC, Terry
Noreault of OCLC Office of Research, and Joseph Hardin of the National Center for
Supercomputer Applications had a hallway conversation about the difficulty of finding
resources on the web.42 In March 1995 the NCSA and OCLC proceeded to hold a joint
workshop on metadata semantics in Dublin, Ohio.43 This workshop, being the namesake of
the standard, outlined fifteen “core” sets of semantics for categorizing Web data. By 1998
these metadata elements would begin to garner serious consideration for standardization. In
July 1999, a group of technical experts would meet in Sante Fe to begin the Open Archives
Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), a forum to tackle the problems of
“multiple search interfaces making discovery harder, and [that] there was no machine-based
way of sharing the metadata.”44 By the time of OAI-PMH 1.0, Dublin Core was wide-spread
enough to be adopted as OAI-PMH’s metadata operability baseline which spearheaded
Dublin Core’s rapidly increasing momentum. Finally, in 2007, DC received ANSI/NISO and
41 Taylor, Arlene G., and Daniel N. Joudrey. The Organization of Information. Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited, 2009. 141. Print. 42 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://dublincore.org/about/history/>.
43 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
44 "2. History and Development of OAI-PMH." Open Archives Forum - Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.oaforum.org/tutorial/english/page2.htm>.
13
IETF RFC ratification as standards, the entity broke off from OCLC in 2008, and in 2009 it
received ISO Standard ratification. This sets the stage for the current situation, in which
Dublin Core, very recently minted by the ISO and now a formal, qualified standard, looks
extremely attractive to many libraries.
An Associate Director for Collections and Technical Services explained that while
her library still mostly uses MARC, Dublin Core has been adopted for special collections,
and that she would like to see an expanded use of Dublin Core because she favored “its
simplicity.” This is a major point for Dublin Core as it was originally founded on fifteen
necessary elements:45
1. Contributor – the entity responsible for making contributions to the resources.
2. Coverage – special or temporal topic, applicability, or relevance of the resource
3. Creator – entity primarily responsible for making the resources
4. Date – used to express temporal information at any level of granularity
5. Description – account of the resources, ie. Abstract, ToC, or free-text
6. Format – file format, physical medium, or dimensions
7. Identifier – unambiguous reference to the resources within a given context
8. Language – language f the resource
9. Publisher – entity responsible for making the resource available
10. Relation – related resource
11. Rights – information about rights held in and over the resource
12. Source – related source from which the described resource is derived
13. Subject – topic of the resource
14. Title – name given to the resource
15. Type – nature or genre of the resource
These fifteen elements are “part of a larger set of metadata vocabularies and technical
specifications,” but are those elements that were formally endorsed in their standardization,
and those which the creators felt would be most crucial and practical to cataloging and
retrieval. Along with the ability to add ranges, super and sub classes, refinements, domains,
members of, instance of, et cetera, a key strong suit of Dublin Core compared to MARC
(which only has equivalence, hierarchy, and associative) is that it’s an open-source standard.
The responses received pointed toward this being a key factor in the switch: “Dublin Core
seems to be very flexible to me, although we had to define our metadata fields that did not fit
with in it, but that’s likely typical and expected. We went with it as it seemed to be the most
well-known and used open-source standard for cataloging online and cross-domain resources.
45 "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
Web. 02 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/>.
IETF RFC ratification as standards, the entity broke off from OCLC in 2008, and in 2009 it
received ISO Standard ratification. This sets the stage for the current situation, in which
Dublin Core, very recently minted by the ISO and now a formal, qualified standard, looks
extremely attractive to many libraries.
An Associate Director for Collections and Technical Services explained that while
her library still mostly uses MARC, Dublin Core has been adopted for special collections,
and that she would like to see an expanded use of Dublin Core because she favored “its
simplicity.” This is a major point for Dublin Core as it was originally founded on fifteen
necessary elements:45
1. Contributor – the entity responsible for making contributions to the resources.
2. Coverage – special or temporal topic, applicability, or relevance of the resource
3. Creator – entity primarily responsible for making the resources
4. Date – used to express temporal information at any level of granularity
5. Description – account of the resources, ie. Abstract, ToC, or free-text
6. Format – file format, physical medium, or dimensions
7. Identifier – unambiguous reference to the resources within a given context
8. Language – language f the resource
9. Publisher – entity responsible for making the resource available
10. Relation – related resource
11. Rights – information about rights held in and over the resource
12. Source – related source from which the described resource is derived
13. Subject – topic of the resource
14. Title – name given to the resource
15. Type – nature or genre of the resource
These fifteen elements are “part of a larger set of metadata vocabularies and technical
specifications,” but are those elements that were formally endorsed in their standardization,
and those which the creators felt would be most crucial and practical to cataloging and
retrieval. Along with the ability to add ranges, super and sub classes, refinements, domains,
members of, instance of, et cetera, a key strong suit of Dublin Core compared to MARC
(which only has equivalence, hierarchy, and associative) is that it’s an open-source standard.
The responses received pointed toward this being a key factor in the switch: “Dublin Core
seems to be very flexible to me, although we had to define our metadata fields that did not fit
with in it, but that’s likely typical and expected. We went with it as it seemed to be the most
well-known and used open-source standard for cataloging online and cross-domain resources.
45 "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
Web. 02 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/>.
14
I like that it’s open-source… we are trying to move all our data into our new Dublin Core
compliant metadata standard, which is based much more on our actual needs.”
Most prominent from that respondent’s reply is the “for cataloging online and cross-
domain resources,” which underscores both Dublin Core’s original intent as well as the
changing landscape of information resources. While people have created software to roughly
convert information from one standard to another, such as the Library of Congress’ MARC
Crosswalks46, it’s significantly better, both for efficiency and for retention of information, for
all databases to use the same standard. For example, in the MARC-to-Dublin-Core
Crosswalk, there is a disclaimer of sorts: “Not that it is not expected that round-trip mapping
is possible using this crosswalk. Once MARC data is converted to Dublin Core, not enough
information is retained to allow for mapping back to MARC accurately.”47 This is because
Dublin Core is at heart a much simpler format (15 primary elements as opposed to the
hundreds of tags), and also because Dublin Core is often modified from institution to
institution to adjust to unique needs. And with more and more information originating as “a
website” or a set of records stored in a database, most notably being something like Twitter, a
format that arguably was not designed with the internet in mind (despite the /21 update to
MARC) begins to lag behind.
So now the question is how widespread Dublin Core is becoming. This was
remarkably difficult to determine because most librarians do not find themselves in the
position of knowing much about metadata, which is purely a cataloging aspect. Among those
in cataloging, many simply go with what is already in place, particularly since these systems
have been in place for some time and changes are costly, and/or they do not find themselves
in a position to make the changes. Others still had deeply-ingrained and highly customized
standards. For example, a librarian working for the March of Dimes, a health charity for
babies, responded that they use their “own standards based on MeSH,” a controlled
vocabulary standard created and managed by the National Library of Medicine. This has
been around since 1954 and has been updated annually48, and is generally accepted as the “de
facto” standard for medical libraries in the United States. One additional result of the survey
method was the revelation that most institutions, for whatever reason, do not disclose such
information readily. One survey-taker responded with interest in finding out the final results
of the survey, which may allude to a lack of significant studies on this topic.
As a result, instead of relying solely on the survey, the group opted to look for
relevant literature on the subject. One 2002 article, if a bit dated, is useful for its specific
findings regarding Dublin Core. This survey was not so much about its spread so much as
46 "MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk." Library of Congress Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html>.
47 "MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk." Library of Congress Home.
48 "Preface - 2011." National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_preface.html#pref_hist>.
I like that it’s open-source… we are trying to move all our data into our new Dublin Core
compliant metadata standard, which is based much more on our actual needs.”
Most prominent from that respondent’s reply is the “for cataloging online and cross-
domain resources,” which underscores both Dublin Core’s original intent as well as the
changing landscape of information resources. While people have created software to roughly
convert information from one standard to another, such as the Library of Congress’ MARC
Crosswalks46, it’s significantly better, both for efficiency and for retention of information, for
all databases to use the same standard. For example, in the MARC-to-Dublin-Core
Crosswalk, there is a disclaimer of sorts: “Not that it is not expected that round-trip mapping
is possible using this crosswalk. Once MARC data is converted to Dublin Core, not enough
information is retained to allow for mapping back to MARC accurately.”47 This is because
Dublin Core is at heart a much simpler format (15 primary elements as opposed to the
hundreds of tags), and also because Dublin Core is often modified from institution to
institution to adjust to unique needs. And with more and more information originating as “a
website” or a set of records stored in a database, most notably being something like Twitter, a
format that arguably was not designed with the internet in mind (despite the /21 update to
MARC) begins to lag behind.
So now the question is how widespread Dublin Core is becoming. This was
remarkably difficult to determine because most librarians do not find themselves in the
position of knowing much about metadata, which is purely a cataloging aspect. Among those
in cataloging, many simply go with what is already in place, particularly since these systems
have been in place for some time and changes are costly, and/or they do not find themselves
in a position to make the changes. Others still had deeply-ingrained and highly customized
standards. For example, a librarian working for the March of Dimes, a health charity for
babies, responded that they use their “own standards based on MeSH,” a controlled
vocabulary standard created and managed by the National Library of Medicine. This has
been around since 1954 and has been updated annually48, and is generally accepted as the “de
facto” standard for medical libraries in the United States. One additional result of the survey
method was the revelation that most institutions, for whatever reason, do not disclose such
information readily. One survey-taker responded with interest in finding out the final results
of the survey, which may allude to a lack of significant studies on this topic.
As a result, instead of relying solely on the survey, the group opted to look for
relevant literature on the subject. One 2002 article, if a bit dated, is useful for its specific
findings regarding Dublin Core. This survey was not so much about its spread so much as
46 "MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk." Library of Congress Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html>.
47 "MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk." Library of Congress Home.
48 "Preface - 2011." National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_preface.html#pref_hist>.
15
the reasoning for its adoption, so it was possible to compare them with more recent but
smaller-scale findings. In this study, the top three reasons for using Dublin Core were its
international acceptance, flexibility, and future interoperability.49 These matched this group’s
findings. What stood out in particular was Dublin Core’s international acceptance, as
opposed to something like MeSH, whose survey alone 9 countries responded to with a “yes,”
against the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative’s (DCMI) “over 1500 subscribers from more than
50 countries.”50 This study also listed reasons people did not use Dublin Core, the top three
of which were the lack of quantity in elements and qualifiers, the lack of guidelines, and
awareness/motivation to switch. The first two speak to its perceived strengths, while the third
implies the practical difficulties facing standards changes in institutions. The DCMI also
administers an ongoing survey to a number of governments contemplating or already using
Dublin Core, but the list is very short and attests to its “in-progress” status.51 For example,
Canada had formally called for the usage of Dublin Core elements in all websites since the
early 2000s, while Denmark is still in the process of developing guidelines for public
websites. Conversely, the United States has only two states – Minnesota and Texas – using
Dublin Core on a government level. Finally, the Repositories Support Project published a
software survey in November 2010 which looked at the various standards some of the major
digital resource database software used .52 This survey revealed that all of the software listed
had support for Dublin Core, while the use of other standards (METS, MARC, IEEE, et
cetera) varied greatly.
The conclusion that can be drawn from these reports is that the information science
world is still undecided on any one standard – one survey was done regarding general
concerns about metadata in general, gathering over 400 answers from 49 countries in creating
an IFLA Guideline for Digital Libraries53 – and that it is highly unlikely that any one standard
will be adopted without an international mandate. Another response received in this group’s
questionnaire said that they use “MODS, METS, VRAcore. It depends what your needs are
and what kind of collection you are describing. Some are better suited for art collections,
other multimedia, and others still (like METS) are metadata wrappers.” While this hints
heavily at the difficulties faced in deciding upon any one standard, as well as for pushing
people to change and update standards (especially from extremely engrained traditions), it is
also clear that many feel incumbent standards like MARC are insufficient when it comes to
web resources.
49 Guinchard, Carolyn. "Dublin Core Use in Libraries: a Survey." OCLC Systems & Services 18.1 (2002): 40-50.
Print.
50 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
51 "DCMI-Government Survey of Activities." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web.
02 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/groups/government/survey-200106.shtml>.
52 "RSP - Repository Software Survey, November 2010." RSP Home Page. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults2010>.
53 Zeng, Marcia Lei, Jaesun Lee, and Allene F. Hayes. "Metadata Decisions for Digital Libraries: A Survey
Report." Journal of Library Metadata 9.3&4 (2009): 173-93. Print.
the reasoning for its adoption, so it was possible to compare them with more recent but
smaller-scale findings. In this study, the top three reasons for using Dublin Core were its
international acceptance, flexibility, and future interoperability.49 These matched this group’s
findings. What stood out in particular was Dublin Core’s international acceptance, as
opposed to something like MeSH, whose survey alone 9 countries responded to with a “yes,”
against the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative’s (DCMI) “over 1500 subscribers from more than
50 countries.”50 This study also listed reasons people did not use Dublin Core, the top three
of which were the lack of quantity in elements and qualifiers, the lack of guidelines, and
awareness/motivation to switch. The first two speak to its perceived strengths, while the third
implies the practical difficulties facing standards changes in institutions. The DCMI also
administers an ongoing survey to a number of governments contemplating or already using
Dublin Core, but the list is very short and attests to its “in-progress” status.51 For example,
Canada had formally called for the usage of Dublin Core elements in all websites since the
early 2000s, while Denmark is still in the process of developing guidelines for public
websites. Conversely, the United States has only two states – Minnesota and Texas – using
Dublin Core on a government level. Finally, the Repositories Support Project published a
software survey in November 2010 which looked at the various standards some of the major
digital resource database software used .52 This survey revealed that all of the software listed
had support for Dublin Core, while the use of other standards (METS, MARC, IEEE, et
cetera) varied greatly.
The conclusion that can be drawn from these reports is that the information science
world is still undecided on any one standard – one survey was done regarding general
concerns about metadata in general, gathering over 400 answers from 49 countries in creating
an IFLA Guideline for Digital Libraries53 – and that it is highly unlikely that any one standard
will be adopted without an international mandate. Another response received in this group’s
questionnaire said that they use “MODS, METS, VRAcore. It depends what your needs are
and what kind of collection you are describing. Some are better suited for art collections,
other multimedia, and others still (like METS) are metadata wrappers.” While this hints
heavily at the difficulties faced in deciding upon any one standard, as well as for pushing
people to change and update standards (especially from extremely engrained traditions), it is
also clear that many feel incumbent standards like MARC are insufficient when it comes to
web resources.
49 Guinchard, Carolyn. "Dublin Core Use in Libraries: a Survey." OCLC Systems & Services 18.1 (2002): 40-50.
Print.
50 "DCMI History." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
51 "DCMI-Government Survey of Activities." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web.
02 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/groups/government/survey-200106.shtml>.
52 "RSP - Repository Software Survey, November 2010." RSP Home Page. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults2010>.
53 Zeng, Marcia Lei, Jaesun Lee, and Allene F. Hayes. "Metadata Decisions for Digital Libraries: A Survey
Report." Journal of Library Metadata 9.3&4 (2009): 173-93. Print.
16
As for the future of Dublin Core, along with the expanded Dublin Core metadata
elements list, DCMI has turned its attention to Application Profiles – metadata records that
“meet specific application needs while providing semantic interoperability with other
applications on the basis of globally defined vocabularies and models.”54 This is a step up
from metadata and begins to tackle standardization between different institutions while
integrating itself into the FRBR cataloging standards. The Singapore Framework displays the
relationship between Application Profiles, metadata, and cataloging standards in this way:
$ 1 Singapore Framework55
This tackles not only the issue of “not enough elements” for some, but also different
needs of different institutions (for example, an incorporation of MeSH vocabulary into
Dublin Core). It would also create a universal standard for compatibility. This is a lofty goal
and may take a long time to create, much less implement, but is definitely a glimpse into the
future.
Conclusion
Technological changes and societal adaptation to new information systems have
inevitably led many in the profession to challenge traditional methods and procedures of
information retrieval. Though some individuals have accepted the idea that innovation and
overhaul are necessary to improve user function, many cling to long-standing, outdated
54 "Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
Web. 2 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/>.
55 "Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
As for the future of Dublin Core, along with the expanded Dublin Core metadata
elements list, DCMI has turned its attention to Application Profiles – metadata records that
“meet specific application needs while providing semantic interoperability with other
applications on the basis of globally defined vocabularies and models.”54 This is a step up
from metadata and begins to tackle standardization between different institutions while
integrating itself into the FRBR cataloging standards. The Singapore Framework displays the
relationship between Application Profiles, metadata, and cataloging standards in this way:
$ 1 Singapore Framework55
This tackles not only the issue of “not enough elements” for some, but also different
needs of different institutions (for example, an incorporation of MeSH vocabulary into
Dublin Core). It would also create a universal standard for compatibility. This is a lofty goal
and may take a long time to create, much less implement, but is definitely a glimpse into the
future.
Conclusion
Technological changes and societal adaptation to new information systems have
inevitably led many in the profession to challenge traditional methods and procedures of
information retrieval. Though some individuals have accepted the idea that innovation and
overhaul are necessary to improve user function, many cling to long-standing, outdated
54 "Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
Web. 2 Dec. 2010. <http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/>.
55 "Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles." DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
17
standards and procedures that are incapable of producing adequate results in the rapidly
evolving information environment. By analyzing some of the leading cataloging standards, it
is possible to see the current times as a pivotal moment that will be re-examined in the future.
Assessment of current attitudes from the project questionnaire strongly suggest uniform
acceptance and implementation of cataloging standards, but significantly more hurdles and
apprehensions over metadata. With the formulation and spread of newer web standards and
more and more Web 2.0/Web 3.0 concepts such as folksonomy and inter-database
relationships, such concepts as Application Profiles are already creeping into the information
science field, some sort of change in the future, whether slight or an overhaul, seems
inevitable to many. These are important implications not only for professionals already in the
field, but to students presently learning the theoretical inner workings and who will go on to
propel the field even further with new ideas.
standards and procedures that are incapable of producing adequate results in the rapidly
evolving information environment. By analyzing some of the leading cataloging standards, it
is possible to see the current times as a pivotal moment that will be re-examined in the future.
Assessment of current attitudes from the project questionnaire strongly suggest uniform
acceptance and implementation of cataloging standards, but significantly more hurdles and
apprehensions over metadata. With the formulation and spread of newer web standards and
more and more Web 2.0/Web 3.0 concepts such as folksonomy and inter-database
relationships, such concepts as Application Profiles are already creeping into the information
science field, some sort of change in the future, whether slight or an overhaul, seems
inevitable to many. These are important implications not only for professionals already in the
field, but to students presently learning the theoretical inner workings and who will go on to
propel the field even further with new ideas.
18
Reference List
Bishop, William Warner. 2010. J. C. M. Hanson and International Cataloging. The Library
Quarterly 4, no. 2 (Apr), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302059 (accessed December
9, 2010)
Carlyle, Allyson. 2006. Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR and the
Bibliographic Universe, Library Resources and Technical Services, 50 (October),
264-265.
Dearstyne, Bruce. 2000. Leadership and Management of Records and Information Programs:
Issues and Strategies. Records & Information Management Report 16 (March), 2.
Denton, William.2007. Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our
Retrieval. Ed. Arlene G. Taylor. Westport: Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Gorman, Michael. 2007. Commemorating the Past, Celebrating the Present, Creating the
Future: Papers in Observance of the 50th Anniversary of the Association for Library
Collections & Technical Services. ed. Pamela Bluh. Chicago: American Library
Association.
Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI).
Guinchard, Carolyn. 2002. Dublin Core Use in Libraries: a Survey. OCLC Systems &
Services 18.1, 40-50. Print.
Jones, Ed and Patrick Carr. 2007. The Shape of Things to Come. The Serials Librarian, 52.
Le Boeuf, Patrick. 2006. …That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no
more …”:the elements that should be accounted for in a conceptual model for
performing arts and the information relating to their archives. Paper given at the
workshop “De la conception à la survie: comment documenter et conserver les
productions du spectacle multimédia ?”on Friday 13 January 2006 in Paris).
Lehnus, Donald J. 1972. A Comparison of Panizzi’s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967.
Occasional Papers No. 105 (Dec.): 37.
McGee, Matt. 2010. By the Numbers: Twitter v. Facebook v. Google Buzz. Blog, posted
February 23, 2010,http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-
facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Pettee, Julia. 1936. The Development of Authorship Entry and the Formulation of Authorship
Rules as Found in the Anglo-American Code. The Library Quarterly 6 no. 3. (Jul.),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302278 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Riley, Jenn. 2006. Techessence.info. FRBR. Techessence. http://techessence.info/frbr
(accessed December 9, 2010.
Reference List
Bishop, William Warner. 2010. J. C. M. Hanson and International Cataloging. The Library
Quarterly 4, no. 2 (Apr), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302059 (accessed December
9, 2010)
Carlyle, Allyson. 2006. Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR and the
Bibliographic Universe, Library Resources and Technical Services, 50 (October),
264-265.
Dearstyne, Bruce. 2000. Leadership and Management of Records and Information Programs:
Issues and Strategies. Records & Information Management Report 16 (March), 2.
Denton, William.2007. Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our
Retrieval. Ed. Arlene G. Taylor. Westport: Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Gorman, Michael. 2007. Commemorating the Past, Celebrating the Present, Creating the
Future: Papers in Observance of the 50th Anniversary of the Association for Library
Collections & Technical Services. ed. Pamela Bluh. Chicago: American Library
Association.
Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI).
Guinchard, Carolyn. 2002. Dublin Core Use in Libraries: a Survey. OCLC Systems &
Services 18.1, 40-50. Print.
Jones, Ed and Patrick Carr. 2007. The Shape of Things to Come. The Serials Librarian, 52.
Le Boeuf, Patrick. 2006. …That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no
more …”:the elements that should be accounted for in a conceptual model for
performing arts and the information relating to their archives. Paper given at the
workshop “De la conception à la survie: comment documenter et conserver les
productions du spectacle multimédia ?”on Friday 13 January 2006 in Paris).
Lehnus, Donald J. 1972. A Comparison of Panizzi’s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967.
Occasional Papers No. 105 (Dec.): 37.
McGee, Matt. 2010. By the Numbers: Twitter v. Facebook v. Google Buzz. Blog, posted
February 23, 2010,http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-
facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Pettee, Julia. 1936. The Development of Authorship Entry and the Formulation of Authorship
Rules as Found in the Anglo-American Code. The Library Quarterly 6 no. 3. (Jul.),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4302278 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Riley, Jenn. 2006. Techessence.info. FRBR. Techessence. http://techessence.info/frbr
(accessed December 9, 2010.
19
Tate, Elizabeth L. 1967. Review: [untitled]. The Library Quarterly, 37, No. 4 (Oct.), p 394
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4305825 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Taylor, Arlene G., and Daniel N. Joudrey. 2009. The Organization of Information. Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited., 141.
Tillett, Barbara ed. 2005. IFLA Cataloging Principles: Steps towards an International
Cataloging Code, 2. Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag.
Tillet, Barbara. 2008. I n FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed by Robert L. Maxwell. Chicago:
American Library Association., 3.
Zeng, Marcia Lei, Jaesun Lee, and Allene F. Hayes. 2009. Metadata Decisions for Digital
Libraries: A Survey Report. Journal of Library Metadata 9 : 173-93.
Websites
Businessdictionary.com. Conceptual Model.” Businessdictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conceptual-model.html(accessed
December 9, 2010).
DCMI-Government Survey of Activities. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative
(DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/groups/government/survey-
200106.shtml.
DCMI History. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
DCMI History. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec.
2010. http://dublincore.org/about/history/
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI). Web. 2 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-
guidelines/.
History and Development of OAI-PMH. Open Archives Forum - Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.oaforum.org/tutorial/english/page2.htm>.
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. A Brief History of RDA. Joint Steering
Committee for Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed
December 9, 2010).
MARC Creator Henriette Avram Dies. ALA | Home - American Library Association. Web.
02 Dec.2010.
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/april2006ab/avra
m.cf
Tate, Elizabeth L. 1967. Review: [untitled]. The Library Quarterly, 37, No. 4 (Oct.), p 394
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4305825 (accessed December 9, 2010).
Taylor, Arlene G., and Daniel N. Joudrey. 2009. The Organization of Information. Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited., 141.
Tillett, Barbara ed. 2005. IFLA Cataloging Principles: Steps towards an International
Cataloging Code, 2. Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag.
Tillet, Barbara. 2008. I n FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed by Robert L. Maxwell. Chicago:
American Library Association., 3.
Zeng, Marcia Lei, Jaesun Lee, and Allene F. Hayes. 2009. Metadata Decisions for Digital
Libraries: A Survey Report. Journal of Library Metadata 9 : 173-93.
Websites
Businessdictionary.com. Conceptual Model.” Businessdictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conceptual-model.html(accessed
December 9, 2010).
DCMI-Government Survey of Activities. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative
(DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/groups/government/survey-
200106.shtml.
DCMI History. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
DCMI History. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec.
2010. http://dublincore.org/about/history/
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI). Web. 02 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles. DCMI Home: Dublin Core® Metadata
Initiative (DCMI). Web. 2 Dec. 2010. http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-
guidelines/.
History and Development of OAI-PMH. Open Archives Forum - Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.oaforum.org/tutorial/english/page2.htm>.
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. A Brief History of RDA. Joint Steering
Committee for Development of RDA, http://www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed
December 9, 2010).
MARC Creator Henriette Avram Dies. ALA | Home - American Library Association. Web.
02 Dec.2010.
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/april2006ab/avra
m.cf
20
MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk. Library of Congress Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html.
Preface - 2011. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health. Web. 02 Dec.
2010. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_preface.html#pref_hist.
RSP - Repository Software Survey, November 2010. RSP Home Page. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults2010.
What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model of the Bibliographic Universe Cataloging Distribution
Service. What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for of the Bibliographic Universe.
Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/cds/products/product.php?productID=86
(accessed December 9, 2010).
MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk. Library of Congress Home. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html.
Preface - 2011. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health. Web. 02 Dec.
2010. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_preface.html#pref_hist.
RSP - Repository Software Survey, November 2010. RSP Home Page. Web. 02 Dec. 2010.
http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults2010.
What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model of the Bibliographic Universe Cataloging Distribution
Service. What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for of the Bibliographic Universe.
Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/cds/products/product.php?productID=86
(accessed December 9, 2010).
Tags
Categories
TechnologyDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 6,906
- Slides 20
- Favorites 7
- Age 5159 days
Related Slideshows
11
8-top-ai-courses-for-customer-support-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
85 views
10
7-essential-ai-courses-for-call-center-supervisors-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
79 views
13
25-essential-ai-courses-for-user-support-specialists-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
76 views
11
8-essential-ai-courses-for-insurance-customer-service-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
62 views
21
Know for Certain
DaveSinNM
36 views
17
PPT OPD LES 3ertt4t4tqqqe23e3e3rq2qq232.pptx
novasedanayoga46
41 views