Section 1
Demonstrate understanding of basic principles and standards involved in organizing information such as classification and controlled vocabulary systems, cataloging systems, metadata schemas or other systems for making information accessible to a particular clientele.

Section 1A: Competency Description and Scope
A well-managed library collection depends upon organizing information. Librarians, archivists, and other information professionals use tools such as controlled vocabulary systems, cataloging systems, and metadata schemas to organize materials.

Classification Systems
Classification systems are organizational systems that allow patrons to search for and find books based on criteria such as author, title, or subject. In the United States, the two most commonly used classification systems are the Dewey Decimal System (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC). Both DCC and LC. Both DDC and LCC rely on grouping similar items together and then arranging them in specified orders (Clarke, 2021, p. 204). Classification systems such as DDC and LCC are also hierarchical, which means that there are relationships between classes. In DDC, for example, the 700 century indicates the arts and the narrower class 746 indicates textile arts (Clarke, p. 206). The class 746 can be divided into even narrower subclasses, such as 746.432 Knitting and 746.434 Crocheting. LC operates with a similar hierarchy.

Classification systems aid patrons in finding items on the shelf. By grouping similar items together, classification systems allow patrons to find many related books together in one section. Additionally, library users can locate items by through call numbers, which are a combination of the classification system notation (e.g., 746 for textile arts) with any additional identifying elements that are needed to distinguish the item. Some potential added elements are the author's name, volume number, year of  publication, or cutter number (Clarke, 2021, p. 210).

In the United States, DDC is used primarily in schools and public libraries, whereas LCC is used more often in academic libraries as well as the Library of Congress (Clarke, 2021, p. 211). However, not all libraries use DDC and LCC for classification. Recently, some school and public libraries have switched to other models that might be termed "reader-interest classifications" or "genrefication." Some of these libraries are relying on Book Industry Standards and Communication (BISAC) Subject Codes Lists, which are, essentially, standardized subjects used by the American bookselling industry to denote a book's three main topics (Clarke, 2021, p. 2019). Other libraries have created their own system, dividing books into genres or subjects that make sense for their specific collection (Witteveen, 2019, p. 40). The common link for all of these libraries is that they are striving to make their libraries more intuitive and approachable to users.

Controlled Vocabulary Systems
Controlled vocabulary systems are lists of standardized terms overseen by designated organizations. Types of controlled vocabulary systems include term lists, authority files, taxonomies, and thesauri (Hedden, 2018, pp. 279-280). Examples of controlled vocabularies systems include Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), and the Cultural Object Name Authority (CONA).

Controlled vocabulary systems differ from classification systems in that the former are not usually hierarchical and their categories are not usually mutually exclusive. Mutual exclusivity in categorization is the idea that something cannot belong to more than one category (Clarke, 2021, p. 205). In a classification system such as DDC, a book cannot go in both history and fiction. However, in a controlled vocabulary, both the terms history and fiction could be applied to a book if both terms are in the vocabulary list.

Controlled vocabulary systems are useful for librarians who need to reference a term (often, a person, place, object, or subject) that others have already referenced. Taylor and Joudrey (2018) observe that controlled subjects lists are helpful to users because they prevent a proliferation of keywords that all mean the same thing but do not lead to each other (p. 163). For example, the LCSH designates "bookstores" as the subject heading. Users who look up the term "bookshops" are directed to use "bookstores." This sort of standardization prevents a situation in which some librarians use bookstores whereas others use bookshops. In turn, this helps users because they will be able to find all relevant materials grouped under one term.

Metadata
Metadata is frequently referred to as "data about data." There are three types of metadata that are commonly encountered in libraries: descriptive, structural, and administrative (Pomerantz, 2015, p. 17). Administrative metadata gives you information about the origin and maintenance of an object, such as the publication year of a book. Structural metadata describes information about an item's physical structure, such as page count or number of chapters. Descriptive metadata provides information about the intellectual content of an item, such as content, author, and title (Emery, n.d.). It aids in the discoverability of an item.

Different metadata structures, or schema, are used for different reasons. Many libraries rely on Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) format, which is a way of encoding metadata so that it can be read by computers. MARC relies on numbered tags to indicate fields (Bolin, 2018, p. 144). It is a popular format because it is standardized, well-known, and many libraries can "copy catalog" already-created MARC records into their own catalogs without having to do the work of creating an entirely new record.

A popular metadata schema in archives is Encoded Archival Description (EAD). Just as librarians use the standardized fields (some of which are required and some of which are optional) of MARC formatting to create catalog records, archivists can use the standardized format of EAD to create archival records called finding aids. Unlike MARC, EAD is encoded in XML formatting. XML format, which can be used for other metadata schema besides EAD as well, uses named elements (e.g., "title") instead of the numbered tags that MARC uses (e.g., MARC records use the tag "245" to indicate title) (Bolin, 2018, p. 144).

Section 1B: Importance to the Profession
Classification, controlled vocabularies, and metadata can be daunting when first encountered. The latter in particular uses many acronyms, initially obscure to beginning catalogers, and involves complex sets of rules to use and understand. However, once the basics of cataloging and library organization systems are learned, it becomes clear that correctly using organizational systems such as these allows for greater access, one of the foundational values of libraries (ALA, 2013). Controlled vocabularies provide standardized points of entry into the great rivers of information that the twenty-first century has given us. Authority and subject controls, such as the LCNAF and the LCSH, respectively, give users access points to materials and information. Similarly, classification systems provide orientation and access to users within collections.

Globalization and high speed internet connections have created unprecedented geographic and temporal connections. It is possible to read research from scholars across the globe just seconds after their work is published. However, without organizational tools such as metadata and classification, it seems improbable that others will discover such research without a great deal of luck. Skills like descriptive metadata make it far more probable that researchers and library users will be able to encounter and engage with relevant materials.

Section 2
Here I will provide three evidentiary items for Competency G.

Section 2A: Preparation
To prepare for this competency, I took classes related to information organization, including INFO 202: Information Retrieval System Design with Professor Alison Johnson, INFO 248: Introduction to Cataloging and Classification with Professor Shahrzad Khosrowpour, and INFO 281: Metadata with Professor David de Lorenzo. In INFO 202, I learned about controlled vocabularies and the difficulty of sorting items into hierarchical classification systems. In INFO 248, I studied cataloging and descriptive metadata. At first, this class was quite difficult for me, and I had to study additional textbooks, articles, and online videos before I could understand even the basics of descriptive cataloging. Finally, INFO 281 gave me a deep dive into the world of metadata, especially as it relates to archives. This course taught me some of the basics of Dublin Core, Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), EAD, and more.

Outside of school, my internship at the San Francisco History Center has helped me internalize some of the distinctions between different metadata schema. It has been helpful for me to get direct experience creating finding aids using EAD, editing them in XML, and then converting these records into MARC format for the San Francisco Public Library.

Section 2B: Evidence

Evidentiary Object 1: INFO 202 Controlled Vocabulary Assignment

For this assignment, I examined four different library records and generated keywords or subjects for them. Then, I arranged my subjects in similar groupings and created overarching terms to encompass each group. I then edited this list and compared it against my original records to evaluate whether or not the "controlled vocabulary" that I had created could work for subject headings for all four records.

This assignment demonstrates my competency at analyzing information and creating a controlled vocabulary based on my analysis. It also shows that I understand the principles behind controlled vocabularies: the words that I chose had to be neither too broad nor too narrow to appropriately function as subject headings. This exercise also shows my understanding of the standards of controlled vocabulary lists, as my subjects are plural when appropriate and listed alphabetically.

Evidentiary Object 2: INFO 248 MARC Records

For this assignment, I created two MARC records using the title pages and publication information of two different books. I then analyzed my own work in a paragraph at the bottom of the assignment.

This assignment is an example of my competency at descriptive cataloging and creating MARC records. It shows that I know how to use MARC tags and fields to create access points for library materials. For example, for the first MARC record, I chose to use the 100 field instead of the 110 field. This shows that I understand that the 100 field is used for the main entry of a personal name (as compared to the 110 field, which is used for the main entry of a corporate name). Additionally, my use of the 264 field for the publication statement indicates that I am up-to-date with the latest RDA recommendations, as the 264 field is RDA-preferred.

My self-analysis at the end demonstrates my competency at doing this work myself. For each decision, I had to carefully consider the information in the book, the available fields, and then enter the information correctly.

Evidentiary Object 3: Les Nickelettes Finding Aid and XMLLinks to an external site.

I created this Finding Aid at my internship at the San Francisco History Center. Using ArchivesSpace, I first created a finding aid for a collection (Les Nickelettes). I then encoded my finding aid in XML so that it could be uploaded to the Online Archive of California. I have included both the final product here (i.e., the finding aid that the public sees) and the XML document that I created and uploaded to OAC.

This finding aid illustrates my competency at both EAD and XML, two common schemas used in libraries and archives. In order to create the XML file, I had to understand XML named elements and formatting. I also had to understand the principles of EAD. This finding aid also demonstrates my competency at using and understanding controlled vocabularies, as I had to include name authorities and subject headings in my finding aid. I consulted the LCNAF and the LCSH first, which provided most of what I needed. I then used local sources (i.e., San Francisco Public Library's internal subjects and authorities) as necessary.

Section 3: Conclusion
The skills I have demonstrated here will be invaluable in my future career as librarian, even if I do not work as a cataloger. The wonderful thing about understanding organization systems and metadata is that it works two ways: being better at creating it also makes you better at using it. Whether I continue to create MARC or EAD records, I will certainly use my understanding of these formats to help me search for information and materials when helping patrons.

Because I found metadata in particular bewildering when I first learned about it, I have built up a wealth of resources to consult in the future. I have become quite adept at searching the Library of Congress Name Authority File and Subject Headings. I have also familiarized myself with several educational videos that have helped me understand these concepts, and I'm sure that I will consult them if I need a refresher. (The most helpful of these for beginners, in my opinion, is Metadata Matters: The Basics, an introductory lecture by Dacia Metes (DHPSNY, 2019).

 
References
ALA. (2013). Our statement on access. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/rusa/strategic-priorities/access

Bolin, M. K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In S. Hirsh (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 142–155). Rowman & Littlefield.

Clarke, R. I. (2021). Library classification systems in the U.S.: Basic ideas and examples. Cataloging & classification quarterly, 59(2-3), pp. 203-224, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2021.1881008

DHPSNY. (2019, July). Metadata matters: The basics [Video File]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKSuBB0xRmY

Emery University. (n.d.). Descriptive metadata. https://metadata.emory.edu/guidelines/descriptive/index.html

Harpring, P. (2010). In M. Baca (ed.), Introduction to controlled vocabularies: Terminology for art, architecture, and other cultural works. Getty Research Institute.

Hedden, H. (2010, October 1). Taxonomies and controlled vocabularies best practices for metadata. J Digit Asset Management, 6, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1057/dam.2010.29

Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata. MIT Press.

Taylor, A. G., & Joudrey, D. N. (2018). Organization and representation of information. In K. Haycock & M.-J. Romaniuck (Eds.), The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts (2nd ed., pp. 153-170). Libraries Unlimited.

Witteveen, A. (2019, September). Flipping for genrefication. School library journal, 65(8), pp. 40-44. https://www.slj.com/story/ditching-dewey-libraries-These-Ideas-Can-Get-You-Started-on-Genrefication