Introduction

One of the key aspects of librarianship and archival work is the organization of materials. This organization is foundational to the functioning of both physical and digital spaces in LIS institutions, enabling easy access and discovery of said materials by users. Structures that support this organization include metadata, cataloging, classification, and controlled vocabularies. Each of these elements play a vital role in making information findable, accessible, and usable.

Metadata 

In simplest terms, metadata is “data about data.” (Hodge, 2001) This term is used in a range of contexts both within and beyond the LIS field, which can sometimes cause confusion. In the context of  libraries and archives specifically, metadata serves multiple functions, including description, administration, preservation, and noting technical requirements or legality of use of an item (Zeng & Qin, 2022). These various functions support discoverability, management, and preservation of materials. 

Different metadata schemas are used depending on the purpose and setting. For decades, libraries have relied on Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) to create metadata records, but are now transitioning to a new bibliographic framework, called BIBFRAME, which is designed to support linked data (Bolin, 2022). MARC records represent items like books within a library’s database, providing detailed information, such as the author, title, page count, and subject, so users can search for and locate materials based on that structured data. 

Archival metadata is similar, but also supports the hierarchical descriptions across collections, series, folders, and individual items; schemas such as Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), Encoded Archival Description (EAD), and Dublin Core (DC) are commonly used (Miller, 2011; Zeng & Qin, 2022). As archival materials are often unpublished, unique, and interrelated, metadata in this context reflects the specific strategies required to understand and maintain these items. For example, condition and access statements are particularly important for archival materials, as items may be deteriorating or require special care when handling.

Cataloging 

Cataloging refers to the creation of these descriptive metadata records that represent the items. In libraries, cataloging provides item-level access through online public access catalogs (OPACs), helping users identify and retrieve specific resources. Each item is cataloged with detailed fields capturing both descriptive and subject attributes (Bolin, 2022). These record fields break up information about the item into usable, searchable bits; as mentioned above this often includes information like the title, author, subject, and publication date of the item (SAA, n.d.; Bolin, 2022). 

In archives, while the term “cataloging” is sometimes used, the process is more commonly referred to as archival description. This approach often employs hierarchical finding aids that guide users from a general collection description to specific boxes, folders or items. As archival items are typically unique and interconnected, description holds duel functions to provide access via subject and preserve original material relationships. Due to time and resource constraints, many individual items do not receive detailed metadata records. Sometimes the only records created are those made during acquisition, which might include a collection or series title, accession number, condition note, provenance, and intended storage location. 

Classification

Classification typically occurs alongside cataloging and can provide the organizational structure of the item within the larger collection (SAA, n.d.). In libraries, classification systems allow materials to be grouped by subject matter, which supports searching and browsing using common classification systems including Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).

Subject access points are often informed by controlled vocabularies to maintain consistency across records and institutions (Bolin, 2022; Miller, 2011). Classification in archives also groups similar materials together, however groups tend to be specific to the collections and may not follow a prominent standardized classification system. Whether in a library or archive, classification makes effective navigation of the collection intuitive for patrons while supporting LIS staff manage collections.

Controlled Vocabulary

Controlled vocabularies are another essential tool for ensuring consistency and clarity in how information is described. Libraries and archives both frequently use systems such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), ISO Code Tables for languages, or the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) to standardize terms (Miller, 2011). Miller (2011) highlights that controlled vocabularies reduce ambiguity and improve search functionality, especially when compared to natural language, which can vary greatly, as controlled vocabularies provide consistent access points that enhance the precision of information retrieval across LIS systems.

Evidence

Info 248: Beginning Cataloging and Classification – MARC Records

The first piece of evidence that showcases my understanding of competency G are completed MARC records for three books I worked with during INFO 248 (compG_marcRecords.pdf). Through the five classes assignments we built these records in stages. Starting with the basic cataloging fields like 245 (Title Statement), 250 (Edition Statement), 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice), and 300 (Physical Description); then moving on to access points with fields 100 (Personal Name) and 700 (Added Entry – Personal Name), LCSH with field 650 (Topical Subject) and associated ARN numbers at the bottom of the record; and finally LCC and DCC schedules in fields 50 (LOC Call Number) and 82 (DD Call Number) with a key at the bottom of the records.

Additionally on the last page are my reflections from each week that illustrate how each section was approached and my experiences. This assignment illustrates my understanding of bibliographic metadata records and the underlying structures that organize this information in libraries. By practicing the application of these fields, logging on to OCLC to cross reference other versions of these records and creating full records for this set of books, I was able to understand why accurate metadata is essential to resource discovery in content management systems.

Info 281: Metadata – Metadata Crosswalk & Records

The next piece of evidence to show my knowledge of metadata schema are the exercises completed for INFO 281 (compG_crosswalkMapping.pdf & compG_metadataRecords.pdf).

This first assignment showcases how many metadata schemas are cross compatible if you know how the different fields relate to each other. By creating a crosswalk covering TEI, MARC, & MODS you can start to visualize how these different schemas cover the same information but are labeled differently to accommodate the unique challenges that they are addressing.

In the second assignment set, I created records for an item using Dublin Core, EAD and MODS. Working through each metadata schema gave me a deeper understanding of how they’re structured, the fields they use, and the unique rules they follow. Although these were originally three separate assignments, I’ve chosen to present them together here to highlight how these schemas all represent the same core data, but in slightly different ways. Each schema reflects the different users, systems, and collections needs, and exploring them as a set shows how flexible metadata can be.

Lace Museum Internship – Metadata Handbook

This last piece of evidence that highlights my mastery of competency G is the metadata handbook I worked on for the Lace Museum (compG_metadataHandbook.pdf). The previous assignments showed how to create metadata in ideal situations where systems have already been established following professional standards. However, smaller archives don’t allows fit into that “ideal state,” and no archive does things exactly the same as another due to varied access to funding, workers, and collection needs.

As we started to work through describing items at the Lace Museum, we had to work with their established CSM, Past Perfect. This application is typically used by smaller museums and historical houses, and while there is an archive section, it doesn’t exactly follow archival best practices. Nevertheless, it seemed important to try and make the fields present correlate as best as they could to a standard metadata schema just in case, down the road, they switch to something like ArchiveSpace.

The handbook is based off of a guide I found for the Arizona Memory Project. The contents include:

• A Collection Overview
• Consistency Guidelines
• Visuals that cover what “pages” and fields should be filled out in Past Perfect
• Main Fields – that covers how all the fields are described in the handbook
• Details for each of the 6 different “pages” that need to be filled out
• Appendix 1: Examples of how to fill in scope and content by item type
• Appendix 2: Explanation of the lace sample storage
• Appendix 3: Dublin Core Crosswalk (in progress)

This is a work in progress, as we’ve been going through the creation of the archive, sections sometimes get changed to reflect the various new items we’re describing. Moreover, I won’t know if the handbook really works until I’m able to have new users work through processing with it as their primary guide.

While the contents of the book reflect the work all four of the student volunteers, I’m the one who thought that we should be keeping record of our work in this matter; additionally, I was the one who researched different collection handbooks and decided that this seemed like the right layout to use; and I’m the one who’s been writing up the different sections. When something gets finalized or changed, I’ll usually ask the others to take a look at what I’ve written and they provide feedback.

This project has solidified my confidence working with metadata schemas and understanding of its significance to a collection.

Conclusion

The principles, standards, and metadata schema that organize information materials in LIS institutions provide ways for us to understand our collections and gain access to them. Especially in large, fully digital systems, if an item doesn’t have correct metadata patrons won’t be able to find and access that item. For me, metadata has been one of the biggest, most constant ideas I’ve worked with during my internships; particularly with archive processing and information retrial system design this is essential knowledge.

To keep informed on the subject it’ll be a good idea to keep an eye out for chances to learn more about BIBFRAME, and see if it does get put into place at larger institutions. There are both in-person and online ways to continue learning. This past year there was an EAD meeting at SAA that I went to and there’s even a conference just for Dublin Core, the DCMI Annual Conference. Online, conversations can happen in metadata forms and news is put out by professional organizations such as ASIS&T, ICA, and SAA.

References

Bolin, M. K. (2022). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In S. Hirsh (ed.), Information services today (3rd ed., pp. 165-178). Rowman & Littlefield.

Hodge, G. (2001). Metadata made simpler: a guide for libraries. NISO Press.

Miller, S. J. (2011). Metadata for digital collections. Neal-Schuman.

Society of American Archivist Dictionary Working Group. (n.d.). Cataloging. In Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Retrieved March 3, 2025, from https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/cataloging.html

Society of American Archivist Dictionary Working Group. (n.d.). Classification. In Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Retrieved March 3, 2025, from https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/classification.html

Zeng, L. M. & Qin, J. (2022). Metadata. Neal-Schuman.