Core Competency G.

Understand the system of standards and methods used to

control and create information structures and apply basic principles involved in the
organization and representation of knowledge.

Introduction:
The organization and representation oI inIormation is at the heart oI the library
and inIormation science proIession. The concepts outlined in this Competency Iuse two
core characteristics oI the Iield: inIormation and service. One oI the primary goals oI a
Library and InIormation ProIessional (LIP) is to help inIormation seekers Iind and access
the inIormation they want or need. InIormation must be organized in such a way that`s
accessible to a patron and must have a structure that`s systematized and recognizable to
LIPs.
Library and inIormation organizations generally have a catalog where records are
stored. The records are created through the use oI MARC (machine readable cataloging)
and AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition). A MARC record is a
cataloging (or bibliographic) record that contains a metadata scheme that is 'readable by
a computer. AACR2 are the standardized rules Ior description and record creation. In
short, MARC determines the Iorm oI a record and AACR2 determine what inIormation is
contained within that record. This standardized system 'prevents duplication oI work and
allows libraries to better share bibliographic resources (Library oI Congress Help Desk,
2009).
ClassiIication systems, like the Dewey Decimal ClassiIication System (DDC) and
the Library oI Congress ClassiIication System (LC) organize inIormation by subject,
oIIering the user systematized, numerical methods Ior Iinding inIormation. Whereas
MARC and AACR2 are designed with the LIP in mind, the DDC and LC are organized
with the user in mind. Numerically ordered subjects are extremely useIul Ior the patron
who wants to browse general subject areas, as well as Ior the patron who is looking Ior a
more specialized inIormation.
Although a majority oI libraries Iollow MARC/AACR2 rules and classiIy
materials either using the DDC or LC system, it is important to note an alternative that is
commonly used. The EAD Document Type DeIinition (DTD) is a 'non-proprietary
standard Ior encoding in Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) or Extensible
Markup Language (XML) the Iinding aids (registers, inventories, indexes, etc.) used in
archives, libraries, museums, and other repositories oI manuscripts and primary sources
to Iacilitate use oI their materials (Reitz, 2010). In other words, EAD oIIers much oI the
same beneIits as MARC doesit provides a structure and Iormat Ior how a record should
be created. Also like MARC, EAD is designed to be machine-readable. The Society oI
American Archivists notes the diIIerence between EAD and HTML.
Where HTML is designed to present inIormation on a webpage (including Iont size,
headers, links, etc), 'EAD is designed to semantically identiIy units oI inIormation useIul
Ior archivists and researchers using primary source materials in archival collections. For
example, where HTML might use Iont sixe"14"~This 14 point text./Iont~ to deIine a
text oI a certain presentational size, EAD almost exclusively uses presentation-
independent declarations such as relatedmaterial~See Boxes 2-15 oI the WXYZ
Collection/relatedmaterial~ (SAA, 2010).

vidence #1: Creation and Organization of Finding Aid
An assignment I completed in LIBR 256, Archives and Manuscripts, taught by
ProIessor Lawrimore, was one oI the Iirst, and certainly most ediIying lesson I had in
cataloging and the organization oI inIormation. ProIessor Lawrimore scanned nearly 100
materials related to a man named Ted Carlson (the class was not allowed to do any
outside research, so we only had these materials to go on in trying to Iigure out who
Carlson was, what was his historical signiIicance and how to go about organizing these
materials into a Iinding aid while adhering to the principle oI archival work: arranging
and describing what we were given to Iacilitate access by users.
As I read through the numerous materials pertaining to Carlson`s liIe, the
strategies Ior how archival work is structured became apparent very quickly. ProIessor
Lawrimore notes that ~two key principles guide the act oI archival arrangement:
provenance and original order. These principles emphasize the need Ior the archivist to
respect the integrity oI the manner in which the records were originally created
accumulated, assembled, and used as opposed to creating some artiIicial scheme
(Lawrimore, 2010).
Providence is described as 'the relationship between records and the
organizations or individuals that created, accumulated, and/or maintained and used them
in the conduct oI personal or corporate activity. The arrangement and description project
was overwhelming at Iirst, but I soon learned that I could accomplish the task iI I simply
Iollowed the guidelines that had been outlined regarding how to create a Iinding aid.
Although it was overwhelming to have so many documents to sort through, the notions oI
providence and original order were extremely helpIul in determining how I would
organize what I was given. I Ieel like I have a much better understanding how archival
materials are classiIied, stored and retrieved. Although this isn`t a complete examination
oI all the components oI cataloging, the need Ior structure and the Iundamental reasons
those structures exists are the same.

vidence #2: Award Winners for Youth Wiki
The concluding assignment in LIBR 267, Award Winners for Youth, provides an
excellent example oI how 'Web 2.0 tools are eIIective and practical when the general
methods and principles oI organization structure are applied. For the Iinal project Ior
LIBR 267, students organized the award-winning books (Ior youth) they had read
throughout the semester into a website. I used http://www.pbworks.com to create this
database. Although the strict rules oI cataloging weren`t necessary Ior this assignment, I
still needed to demonstrate a Iundamental understanding oI how to arrange the 35 records
in a clear and logical way.
Although the rules I outlined Ior each oI my records weren`t as speciIic as MAC
or EAD, I was aware that I needed to create a logical Iormat Ior each record and keep that
structure consistent throughout. Additionally, tagging was an essential component to my
database, just as it is in MARC records. A 'tag is a non-hierarchical term given to a
piece oI inIormation. In a MARC record, a tag allows the computer system to Iind the
requested item (and similar items) with ease. In my Award Winners Ior Youth database, I
tagged records based on the awards each title won. II a user noticed that the record they
were looking at was tagged with 'ALA Notable Children`s Books, they would be able to
click on tag to produce a list oI titles Irom the database that had been awarded that
distinction. Through this type oI tagging, users can easily navigate through wikis, blogs
and other Web 2.0 tools. My Award Winners Ior Youth Wiki showed me how to apply
the methods oI cataloging to the inIormation and representation oI knowledge in the Web
2.0 arena.

vidence #3 Tumblr
I`m including a third piece oI evidence to highlight how tagging, or Iolksonomy, can
range Irom the objective (the awards a title has won) to the subjective. Folksonomy is
especially prevalent in social networking tools. AIter the high school students I work with
as Teen Librarian at the Mill Valley Public Library (MVPL) kept talking about
Tumblr.com, I thought I would explore it. I created a Tumblr, not so much because I Iind
the website entertaining, but more as a way oI exploring the social networking tools that
the patrons I serve are using. As the screenshot (Evidence #3) highlights, the tags are
much less Iormal than they were in my Award Winners Ior Youth Wiki.The tags I create
Ior my Tumblr are one way to illustrate the concept oI Iolksonomy (Iree-Iorm tagging, is
a user-generated classiIication system oI web). My tags could be both descriptive
'Creative writing workshop, 'Mill Valley Public Library, personal jokes that only a
certain group would understand or a description oI what happened in the class that day
(e.g., 'John Updike and 'A&P).
Folksonomy allows users to publicly describe and share data, so that they can
personally categorize and share inIormation as well as browse inIormation categorized by
others. There are some LIPs that debate the eIIectiveness oI using subjective, Iree Iorm
tags as a Iorm oI classiIication. Yet these tags are indeed a Iorm oI classiIication and
descriptive representations oI knowledge, and LIPs should be aware oI the possible
beneIits and challenges oI these tags.

Conclusion
My understanding oI standards and methods used to control and create
inIormation structures is derived, in Iact, Irom my application oI basic principles
involved in the organization and representation oI knowledge. My work to Ierret out an
understanding and then develop an inIormational representation oI Ted Carlson, my
logical inIormation Iormatting and presentation in my Award Winners Ior Youth
database and extensive Iolksonomy/Tumblr.com work at MVPL have combined to give
me a broad competency in this area. Moreover, my Iamiliarity with both Iormal and 'less
Iormal systems and structures leaves me well-prepared to apply this knowledge in
traditional and modern environments to serve both traditional and modern knowledge
seekers.


References
Library oI Congress Help Desk (2009 Understanding MARC Bibliographic. Retrieved
Irom: http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html

Noruzi, Alireza (2006). Folksonomies: (Un)controlled vocabulary? Knowledge
Organi:ation, 33(4): 199-203.

Society oI American Archivists (2010). What is EAD Retrieved Irom
http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/ead/aboutead.html