Representation and Description

Information Organization – LIS 5703
Dr. Mary Prentice
Representation and Description Paper
By Daniel Lanza
20 July 2011

There are many ways metadata can be constructed, two popular standards used by librarians are Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) and the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES or DC). For this assignment, I chose to work with Ernest Hemingway’s book: The Old Man and the Sea as a reference. First I created a few tables to help me compare the data in easy to read tables and in the technical display (see Tables 1-4). Second I used the Library of Congress (LOC) catalog data for the DC record and the FSU Library catalog for the MARC data to introduce a little more variance. Then I chose the most important aspects based on the representation and description of the metadata, as well as the similarities and differences between DC and MARC for each Title, Author, Subject(s), Identifier, and Format.

Title

The Title element is always one of the most important elements in any metadata representation. In this case, the Title is very simple and straight forward. However, sometimes the Title can be more complex and require multiple iterations. According to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) (2008), “if in doubt about what constitutes the title, repeat the Title element and include the variants in second and subsequent Title iterations” (4.1). Also, the MARC Title usually includes the Author or “Statement of responsibility” even though it is repeated in field 100.

Author/Creator

What is the difference between Author and Creator? Author implies that it is a written work. You will never hear anyone say they authored an apple pie. Creator is more generalized because it doesn’t relate to any specific format and anyone can create anything. According to the DCMI (2008), “Such convergence on a common, if slightly more generic, element set increases the visibility and accessibility of all resources, both within a given discipline and beyond” (1.2).
The same difference is apparent between MARC and DC because MARC was designed for libraries and DC is intended for any kind of information, especially digital. MARC defines the complexities of the Author field, “For mixed material, this idea of authorship is not always clear-cut. The main entry may contain the name of the person, family, or entity responsible for bringing the materials together. Alternatively, the main entry may contain the name of the person, family, or entity for whom or which a collection is named” (LOC, 2000, 100).

Subjects

Subjects are very important for representing and describing overall themes that aren’t always obvious in the Title or Description. The subjects are essentially the same between MARC and DC. They conform to the Dumb-Down Principle, which states, “the remaining element value (minus the qualifier) must continue to be generally correct and useful for discovery” (DCMI, 2005). I found it interesting that each subject is followed by “– Fiction” to help denote that the subject is fictitious; it’s very difficult to know when and where to add these little bits of information that make all the difference. Greenberg says, “Cataloging in MARC requires trained professionals who are familiar with the scheme’s syntax and standards” (114).

Identifier

There always has to be some kind of unique identifier so it is possible to tell the difference between similar records. One standard identifier that you will always see in library systems is the International Standard Book Number (ISBN), which is usually the only true commonality between cataloging systems. In this case, because the MARC and DC records are taken from two different systems the identifiers are very different as well. The DC record has links to the LOC website while the MARC record has identifiers specific to the FSU catalog. I believe that the links help maintain the Appropriate Values Principle, which states “in general an implementor cannot predict that the interpreter of the metadata will always be a machine. This may impose certain constraints on how metadata is constructed” (DCMI, 2005). I think that a website link is easier to understand and provides more context for a human than a numerical code like the FSU Library SYS code 002684693. A numerical code doesn’t mean anything without some context.

Format/Type

Format and Type have differences similar to those found in Author and Creator. Book is used as the Format by MARC and is obviously a written work. The description is closely related because it describes the book’s physical page count and width in centimeters. This field helps enforce the One-to-One Principle which says, “Dublin Core metadata describes one manifestation or version of a resource, rather than assuming that manifestations stand in for one another” (DCMI, 2005). While a more generic “text” is used for Type by DC. The following words “Bildungsromane” and “Allegories” are literary terms used to describe the content of the book. This approach is very different from MARC, but it makes sense because digital text doesn’t have a real page count or width.

The MARC and DC schemas are quite different, but they still share quite a few similarities. They each serve a purpose in cataloging and if possible they should both be used in the search for information. Modern websites, like the LOC, have implemented both standards and enhanced their accessibility. Cataloging the Web states, “Dublin Core elements can be mapped to MARC 21 fields and considered a subset of the larger scheme. Since Dublin Core does not insist on a syntax, Dublin Core elements can be encoded in MARC 21 using a crosswalk” (43). Software has been written that bridges the gap between the standards and allows systems to easily utilize the advantages of each schema.

Table 1 – Dublin Core (LOC Catalog)
http://lccn.loc.gov/95148450/dc

Table 2 – Dublin Core Technical Display
http://lccn.loc.gov/95148450/dc

<srw_dc:dc xsi:schemaLocation="info:srw/schema/1/dc-schema http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/dc-schema.xsd">
<title>The old man and the sea /</title>
<creator>Hemingway, Ernest,1899-1961.</creator>
<type>text</type>
<type>Bildungsromane. gsafd</type>
<type>Allegories. gsafd</type>
<publisher>New York : Scribner Paperback Fiction,</publisher>
<date>1995.</date>
<language>eng</language>
<subject>Fishers--Fiction.</subject>
<subject>Older men--Fiction.</subject>
<subject>Male friendship--Fiction.</subject>
<coverage>Cuba--Fiction.</coverage>
<identifier>http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/simon033/95148450.html</identifier>
<identifier>http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0641/95148450-s.html</identifier>
<identifier>http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0902/95148450-b.html</identifier>
<identifier>URN:ISBN:0684801221</identifier>
</srw_dc:dc>

Table 3 – MARC Record (FSU Catalog)

http://fsu.catalog.fcla.edu/fs.jsp?st=FS002684693&ix=nu&I=0&V=D&pm=1

Table 4 – MARC Record Technical Display

http://fsu.catalog.fcla.edu/fs.jsp?st=FS002684693&ix=nu&I=0&V=D&pm=1

 

References

Jones, W., Ahronheim, J. R., & Crawford, J. (2002). Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and
MARC 21. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.

Greenberg, J. (2000). Metadata and organizing educational resources on the Internet. New
York: Haworth Information Press.

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. (2005). Using Dublin Core. [Dublin, Ohio]: Dublin Core
Metadata Initiative. Retrieved on July 15, 2011 from
http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/.

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. (2008). Dublin Core metadata element set, reference
description. [Dublin, Ohio]: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Retrieved on July 15,
2011 from http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.

Furrie, B. (2000). Understanding MARC Bibliographic Machine-Readable Cataloging.
Washington, DC: Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/.

Library of Congress. (2000). MARC 21 concise format for bibliographic data. [Washington,
D.C.]: Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/

Hemingway, E. (2003). The Old Man and the Sea. New York: Scribner.