Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond
Identifieur interne : 000174 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000173; suivant : 000175Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond
Auteurs : Ingrid HsiehyeeSource :
- OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives [ 1065-075X ] ; 2000-09-01.
Abstract
Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of Americas LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain handson practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative TEI, and encoded archival description EAD. The instructors objectives are to broaden students understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twentyfirst century.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/10650750010345256
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFFLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" sort="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" uniqKey="Hsiehyee I" first="Ingrid" last="Hsiehyee">Ingrid Hsiehyee</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Ingrid HsiehYee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/10650750010345256</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000174</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" sort="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" uniqKey="Hsiehyee I" first="Ingrid" last="Hsiehyee">Ingrid Hsiehyee</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Ingrid HsiehYee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2000-09-01">2000-09-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="130">130</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="143">143</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno></series><idno type="istex">50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/10650750010345256</idno><idno type="filenameID">1640160303</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1640160303.pdf</idno><idno type="href">10650750010345256.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of Americas LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain handson practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative TEI, and encoded archival description EAD. The instructors objectives are to broaden students understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twentyfirst century.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Ingrid HsiehYee</name><affiliations><json:string>Ingrid HsiehYee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Cataloguing</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Internet</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Resources</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Information retrieval</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>case-report</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of Americas LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain handson practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative TEI, and encoded archival description EAD. The instructors objectives are to broaden students understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twentyfirst century.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.836</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>610 x 789 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1112</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>5190</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>35312</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>14</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>153</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title><genre><json:string>case-report</json:string></genre><host><volume>16</volume><publisherId><json:string>oclc</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>143</last><first>130</first></pages><issn><json:string>1065-075X</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><subject><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Librarianship/library management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Records management & preservation</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library technology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information repositories</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/oclc</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/10650750010345256</json:string></doi><id>50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF</id><score>0.24129727</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><availability><p>EMERALD</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Ingrid</forename><surname>HsiehYee</surname></persName><affiliation>Ingrid HsiehYee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><idno type="pISSN">1065-075X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/oclc</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2000-09-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="130">130</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="143">143</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/10650750010345256</idno><idno type="filenameID">1640160303</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1640160303.pdf</idno><idno type="href">10650750010345256.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of Americas LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain handson practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative TEI, and encoded archival description EAD. The instructors objectives are to broaden students understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twentyfirst century.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Cataloguing</term></item><item><term>Internet</term></item><item><term>Resources</term></item><item><term>Information retrieval</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-LLM</label><item><term>Librarianship/library management</term></item><label>cat-RMP</label><item><term>Records management & preservation</term></item><label>cat-LTC</label><item><term>Library technology</term></item><label>cat-IREP</label><item><term>Information repositories</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000-09-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="case-report"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">oclc</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/oclc</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1065-075X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MCB UP Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/10650750010345256</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">1640160303.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">1640160303</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">case-report</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Case study</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LLM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Librarianship/library management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LTC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-RMP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Records management & preservation</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IREP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information repositories</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Organizing Internet resources: teaching cataloging standards and beyond</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Ingrid</given-names> <surname>Hsieh‐Yee</surname></string-name><aff>Ingrid Hsieh‐Yee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>09</month><year>2000</year></pub-date><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>130</fpage><lpage>143</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© MCB UP Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2000</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="10650750010345256.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p>Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of America’s LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain hands‐on practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative (TEI), and encoded archival description (EAD). The instructor’s objectives are to broaden students’ understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twenty‐first century.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cataloguing</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Internet</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Resources</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Information retrieval</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta><ack><p>A portion of the paper was summarized at the Technical Services Special Interest Group’s program on “Teaching the organization of electronic resources: approaches of four programs”, which was held at the 2000 ALISE Annual Conference in San Antonio, Texas, USA.</p></ack></front><body><p>Rapid growth of Internet resources has stimulated much interest in their organization. The cataloging community has developed new guidelines for cataloging these materials, such as those presented in the manual edited by Olson (1997), as well as those presented in I<italic>SBD (ER): The International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources</italic> (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/isbd.htm">http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/isbd.htm</ext-link>) (Sandberg‐Fox and Byrum, 1998). In addition, information organizers have experimented with metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), text encoding initiative (TEI), and encoded archival description (EAD) to describe and encode information objects for resource discovery (Hudgins <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999). Educators have also begun to cover metadata in their curriculum (Glaviano, 2000; “Teaching the organization of electronic resources”, 2000). This paper describes the strategy that the School of Library and Information Science at the Catholic University of America employed to prepare students for the organization of Internet resources.</p><p>The nature and variety of resources on the Internet underscore the need for information organization in the digital age (e.g. Levy, 1995; Lynch, 1997). The question is whether cataloging is the answer. Critics of cataloging standards have denounced their complexity and cost of implementation, and have proposed simpler solutions such as Dublin Core (Chepesiuk, 1999; Medeiros, 2000; Hakala <italic>et al.</italic>, 1998; Tennant, 1998). On the other hand, many practitioners and researchers have concluded that cataloging principles can be applied to digital resources (Mandel and Wolven, 1996) and that it is worthwhile to catalog important Internet resources for users because such efforts add value to the resources by collocating materials, facilitating access, and saving time (Gorman, 1999; Oder, 1998; Veatch, 1999). In response to the changing information environment, an IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) study group investigated the functional requirements for bibliographic records (IFLA, 1998), and researchers and practitioners convened at an international conference to discuss the principles and development of AACR (Americal Library Association, 1998). As catalogers gain more experience in cataloging Internet resources, they have begun to review the cataloging process and re‐examine the content and encoding of bibliographic records. Working Group 1 of the CC:DA (Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access) Task Force on Metadata, for example, examined libraries’ resource description needs and proposed a serious review of the elements in bibliographic records (CC:DA, 1999). The USMARC listserv had lively discussions on XML MARC in April 2000. In addition, Hopkinson (1999) explained the limitations and strengths of MARC, and Hakala (1999) stated that new tools such as Dublin Core elements have been used to organize electronic documents and would co‐exist with MARC formats.</p><p>What one learns from the literature and discussions is that the need for information organization has become more urgent as libraries include more digital resources in their collections (e.g. Dorner, 2000; Levy, 1995; Medeiros, 1999). Furthermore, cataloging is one of the solutions for organizing Internet resources (Oder, 1998), and it will need to change to allow catalogers to handle digital resources more efficiently (e.g. Ayres, 1999; Dorner, 2000). Based on this understanding, the author developed a three‐level approach to preparing students for the challenges of organizing Internet resources: </p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>(1) raise awareness of Internet resources cataloging and the application of metadata standards;</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>(2) provide hands‐on practice in cataloging Internet resources with AACR2 and Dublin Core; and </p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>(3) offer hands‐on practice with selected methods of information organization, using selected metadata standards.</p></list-item></list><sec><title>Raising awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata</title><p>Believing that having some understanding of information organization can help one provide better information services, the author designed two modules to increase student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata schemes. After students mastered the basics of original cataloging, they received an overview of the challenges posed by Internet resources. They learned about how catalogers use field 856 and the guidelines edited by Olson (1997) to address some of these challenges. They then examined three Web sites and the bibliographic records for those sites in order to understand how the records were created. This experience usually managed to alleviate students’ anxieties because it illustrated how cataloging rules have been revised to accommodate the new format and how librarians have integrated such resources into their collection and services.</p><p>Students were also introduced to metadata schemes. They learned the definition and functions of metadata, then reviewed examples of selected metadata schemes, including MARC, Dublin Core, TEI, and EAD (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303001">Figure 1</xref> or visit the Web site at <<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://slis.cua.edu/ihy/mp.htm">http://slis.cua.edu/ihy/mp.htm</ext-link>>). The instructor demonstrated the creation of Dublin Core data by DC‐Dot Dublin Core Generator (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot">http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot</ext-link>), the implementation of Dublin Core in the OCLC CORC (Cooperative Online Resource Catalog) project (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/</ext-link>), and a search tool that makes use of Dublin Core elements (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.images.umdl.umich.edu/">http://www.images.umdl.umich.edu/</ext-link>). In this way, the instructor showed students Dublin Core’s potential. Students also observed the search and display capabilities of the Etext Center at the University of Virginia (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://etext.virginia.edu/">http://etext.virginia.edu/</ext-link>) to learn how full texts are encoded by TEI. Students often found the demonstrations stimulating because they learned not only how metadata schemes have been applied to various types of Internet resources, but also how information professionals have used technology to support their work. By the end of the course, students were not experts in metadata or in Internet resources cataloging. Rather, they had some understanding of how Internet resource records are created, which metadata scheme is used on which type of material, and how cataloging relates to metadata.</p><p>While students are excited about learning how Internet resources are controlled, sometimes there is not enough time for the instructor to provide more than an overview. The modules on cataloging Internet resources and using metadata come at the end of the semester because it is necessary for students to understand the basics of cataloging first. The instructor’s goal, then, is to pare down the topics in the basic cataloging course to give students a solid introduction to Internet resources cataloging and metadata. Beyond that, some students do decide to learn more about Internet resources cataloging.</p></sec><sec><title>Cataloging Internet resources with AACR, MARC, and Dublin Core</title><p>The advanced cataloging course was redesigned for spring, 2000, to give students hands‐on Internet resources cataloging practice, in addition to teaching the cataloging of serials, sound recordings, video recordings, computer files and multimedia. The course began with an overview of the characteristics of Internet resources, how to evaluate and select Internet resources for a collection, current methods for organizing them on the Web, and issues to consider in cataloging them. For example, which resources should be cataloged? How should they be cataloged (collection‐level vs item‐level; monograph vs serial; single record vs multiple records)? How can records be encoded and maintained? <italic>Anglo‐American Cataloguing Rules</italic> (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, 1998), <italic>Cataloging Internet Resources</italic> (Olson, 1997) and chapters from <italic>Organizing Audiovisual and Electronic Resources for Access: A Cataloging Guide</italic> (Hsieh‐Yee, 2000) provided the necessary guidance. A template of MARC fields frequently used to encode Internet resources was used to support learning.</p><p>From one exercise and three major assignments, students obtained a range of experience in Internet resources organization. In the first, they cataloged five Web pages provided by the instructor, and two‐person teams each selected a Web page and led a class discussion on how to catalog that particular page. Discussions were usually very lively as the class worked together to create the best possible record for a Web page or Web site. Initially, some students resorted to common sense to figure out how to describe certain elements, but as other students cited cataloging rules and examples to explain their cataloging efforts, the whole class soon learned to turn to established standards for answers. The discussions consumed much class time, but viewing the same Web pages and debating appropriate descriptions of them (often citing rules and guidelines) helped students develop a better appreciation of Internet resources cataloging. Lack of experience in cataloging Internet resources did make students uneasy, but such feelings subsided after analyzing five records as a group.</p><p>Discussions consumed much class time, but viewing the same Web pages and debating appropriate descriptions of them helped develop a better appreciation of Internet resources cataloging</p><p>Subsequently, it was in the major individual project that students gained more experience in cataloging Internet resources. The purpose of the project was to give students:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>hands‐on practice in cataloging Internet resources;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>experience with the CORC system and its functionality;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>an opportunity to analyze how CORC can assist in bibliographic records creation; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>practice in creating Dublin Core records. </p></list-item></list><p>Each student focused on a subject area and searched for ten Internet resources on that subject. Because our school had been participating in the CORC project since March 1999, students could learn to create bibliographic records in CORC and use its authority files to verify access points. Students followed cataloging standards and guidebooks to create CORC records in MARC format. They also printed out the records generated by CORC upon submission of URLs. Then they compared the machine‐generated records with their manually created ones to compare the differences on worksheets. Data recorded included fields revised, fields deleted, fields added, and the relevance of DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) numbers and subject keywords assigned by CORC.</p><p>Using CORC for record creation proved to be a good learning experience. CORC has many features to facilitate record creation (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/documentation/index.htm">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/documentation/index.htm</ext-link>). Among them are automation‐assisted creation of resource records, multi‐record creation, assignment of DDC numbers, assignment of subject keywords (through WordSmith), integration of authority files into CORC, linkage between pathfinders and CORC records, access to electronic Dewey, support for records editing by field, full‐screen editing and the use of constant data, and links to MARC21 (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303002">Figure 2</xref>). CORC can also convert records back and forth between MARC and Dublin Core. Students appreciated many of the features and qualities of CORC, especially the speed at which CORC generated records for submitted URLs, the full‐screen editing capability, the authority files, the automation‐assisted maintenance of URLs, and the links to MARC21. However, the student analyses and comparison revealed that CORC draws on meta tags in Web pages to generate records, and has trouble processing Web pages that use frames or JavaScript. They also found that initial CORC records need much editing to conform to cataloging standards. Subject terms assigned by CORC were frequently off target, and subject classification numbers were sometimes misleading. These observations are based on the analyses by ten students who analyzed ten records each. Since these students were novices in cataloging Internet resources the findings may not be applicable to all CORC records, but they do suggest a trend. A research team consisting of librarians at our university is investigating this issue and will report its findings this summer.</p><p>Another challenge that students encountered was the slowness of the system. As the project deadline loomed, students experienced a lot of difficulty accessing the system, regardless of the time of day. Fortunately, the CORC system staff were quick to explain the slowness of the system and provide helpful suggestions for software and hardware. As a whole, it was very helpful for students to work with CORC during its experimental stage. Their CORC experience helped them understand the complexity involved in creating a system like CORC and in using technology to support cataloging. Their record creation exercises also gave them an opportunity to reflect on whether the details in current cataloging standards are essential for representing and providing access to Internet resources.</p><p>A second part of the cataloging project required students to create five Dublin Core records for selected Internet resources (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303003">Figure 3</xref> for DC element set or visit the Web site at <<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://purl.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm">http://purl. org/dc/documents/rec‐dces‐19990702.htm</ext-link>>). Students were instructed to use any number of Dublin Core elements to represent these resources and to record the questions that they had when creating the records. Students then consulted the Dublin Core usage guidelines developed by the University of Chicago (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/Annex/TechSvcs/dcguidelines.html">http://www.lib. uchicago.edu/Annex/TechSvcs/dcguidelines. html</ext-link>) to answer their own questions. Students soon discovered that the simplicity of Dublin Core could be a mixed blessing because there are no detailed national or international guidelines on the use of these elements, other than the information provided at the Dublin Core home page (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://purl.oclc.org/dc/">http://purl.oclc.org/dc/</ext-link>) and a draft user guide edited by Diane Hillmann in 1998 (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://purl.org/dc/documents/wd-guide-current.htm">http://purl.org/dc/documents/wd‐guide‐current.htm</ext-link>). For example, should “rights” be used for copyright information, information on access restriction, ratings information or all of the above? Which element is used for system requirement information? They also found no instructions on how to enter personal names, title proper, publication information or subject information. Students astutely observed that, while Dublin Core elements seemed straightforward and easy to apply at first glance, any groups or institutions using this standard would need to spell out how they plan to use the standards in their own environments. The students also observed that Dublin Core users would need to coordinate efforts to avoid duplication in record creation and need to develop guidelines together to support record sharing in the future.</p><p>While the first project helped students understand the importance of guidelines, the second project asked students to develop Dublin Core guidelines for some type of material and create five records according to those guidelines. The class took a close look at AACR2R to understand the issues that it covered, including levels of description, order of elements, definition of elements, sources of information, choice of access points, and syntax. Students then developed guidelines for formats of their choice: sound recordings, computer files, serials, and others. They experienced first‐hand many issues that need to be considered when developing guidelines. Some students provided detailed guidelines and included many examples to make their guidelines easy to use, some created more general outlines, and some followed AACR2R closely in order to use Dublin Core. After the Dublin Core records were completed, students were asked to create AACR2R records for the same items and compare the Dublin Core experience with the AACR2R experience. It is worth noting how students’ views of cataloging and metadata standards such as Dublin Core evolved over time. At the beginning of the semester, they were firm believers of AACR2R and tended to assess Dublin Core through the prism of AACR2R. By the time that they developed their own Dublin Core guidelines and applied them, they had developed a better appreciation of the value and potential of Dublin Core. They continued to believe in the value of AACR2R, but they also became more aware of the need to change AACR2R to make it a more efficient tool for information organization. In addition, they became more open‐minded about the adoption of metadata schemes and more flexible in considering options for integrating records created by different standards.</p><p>To encourage students to stay in touch with library science literature, the final project involved preparing a short paper on the future of information organization, particularly cataloging, and the future of the profession, particularly catalogers. Many students demonstrated strong abilities in locating and synthesizing relevant literature. They affirmed the value of information organization in the digital age and concluded that catalogers and other information organizers would have a bright future. Drawing on their project experiences and literature, they presented cogent arguments that the principles of information organization would continue to guide us in organizing materials of all formats, that knowledge of other technologies would lend insight into information organization, that information professionals, especially catalogers, must remain flexible, and that collaboration with other information professionals would become increasingly important. Overall, the maturity and confidence that students exhibited was the best reward that a teacher could receive.</p></sec><sec><title>Cataloging standards and beyond</title><p>Our school’s involvement in organizing Internet resources started in 1995 when we took part in the InterCat project. We developed a course entitled “Organization of Internet resources” to examine whether AACR, MARC, LCSH, and DDC could represent Internet resources well. Students followed the manual developed for the InterCat projects and created records for 15 selected resources each. The class then discussed how AACR might need to change to accommodate the unique features of Internet resources. Changes in technology and the ways in which resources are presented on the Internet necessitated a redesign of the course in 1999. The new course covered several methods of information organization, including electronic pathfinders, bibliographic records, electronic texts, and online finding aids. The standards covered included HTML, AACR2R, MARC, Dublin Core, TEI, and EAD. The basic cataloging course was the prerequisite for this course. Four projects were designed to give students hands‐on experience with various standards.</p><p>The first project involved the creation of electronic pathfinders. After the class discussed the evaluation and selection of resources for a user group or a collection, students searched for resources relevant to their selected topics and prepared annotations for the resources. They then used the Netscape Composer HTML editor to create Web pages for their pathfinders. They then moved on to the CORC system, and used its pathfinder module to create their pathfinders in CORC (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303004">Figure 4</xref>). The purpose for creating pathfinders in two ways was to help students reflect on the differences between the two approaches (HTML vs CORC pathfinder) and the strengths and limitations of pathfinders as a tool for information organization. Netscape Composer is a simple WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) HTML editor, and students learned to master it quickly to create decent Web pages. CORC’s pathfinder module, on the other hand, is a more complex tool. It allows creators to search the CORC database, tag records, and import those records into a CORC pathfinder. In addition, the pathfinder module supports cloning from existing pathfinders, offers fairly easy methods for adding links and annotations, and allows creators to embed search statements in a pathfinder so that the pathfinder will be updated automatically every time it is displayed by a user. In addition, pathfinders can be exported in a number of ways for local customization, and creators can supply their own style sheets to customize the look and feel of their pathfinders in CORC and in their local systems. The key difference between the CORC pathfinder module and an HTML editor like Composer is that the former is more concerned about the pathfinder’s content, while the latter is more concerned about the pathfinder’s appearance. Students learned from this project that many pathfinders on the Web suffer from a linear structure and the dynamic nature of Internet resources. The CORC pathfinder module tries to address these problems by embedding search statements in pathfinders, but that solution itself is not without problems, and students had mixed feelings about this feature. Nevertheless, OCLC is continuing to improve the pathfinder module.</p><p>The second project required students to create ten records for Internet resources according to either AACR2R and the Olson’s guidelines or Dublin Core. In addition, students compared initial machine‐generated records with their finished records and reported on the differences between the two groups of records. Students using AACR2R and the Olson’s guidelines seemed to develop a procedure for record creation relatively quickly, while Dublin Core users struggled a little with the meaning and use of the elements (probably because the elements were new to students.) Both groups reported that much editing of the initial records generated by CORC was needed. Even the title elements required revision most of the time. Students concluded that machine‐assistance has yet to reach the level at which we would like it to be.</p><p>The students’ experience with Dublin Core elements was probably fairly typical for people new to Dublin Core. The initial joy of finding something so simple and straightforward quickly turned into concerns about how to define and use elements in a specific environment. In initial brainstorming sessions, students sometimes drew on AACR2R and tried to use Dublin Core to accomplish what AACR2R has allowed us to accomplish. But when confronted with questions such as “why do you want to use Dublin Core?”, “what do you want Dublin Core records to do for you?”, “who will be using these records and how will they use these records?”, and “who will be creating Dublin Core records in your organization and what kind of information organization background do they have?”, they soon realized the need for guidelines. Once guidelines and a plan for implementing Dublin Core were in place, students were able to create records with relative ease.</p><p>Although students using AACR2R had a slightly easier time creating records, they were still able to examine the rules critically and question the wisdom of including so many details about a type of resources that is so dynamic in nature. The students felt that AACR2R probably should be simplified if we were to use it to represent Internet resources. Students using Dublin Core also realized the need to review the goals of information organization and to reconsider which elements are essential to achieve those goals.</p><p>Going beyond the creation of surrogates, the third project dealt with encoding text documents. Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) was developed in 1987 by humanities scholars, publishers, librarians, and archivists to encode literary texts (see the TEI home page at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.uic.edu:80/orgs/tei/">http://www.uic.edu:80/orgs/tei/</ext-link>). It has served as the bedrock for several etext projects such as the African American women writers of the nineteenth century at the New York Public Library (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://digital.nypl.org/schomburg/writers_aa19/toc.html">http://digital.nypl.org/schomburg/writers_aa19/toc.html</ext-link>). This module drew on the <italic>TEI Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange (P3)</italic> (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://etext.virginia.edu/TEI.html">http://etext.virginia.edu/TEI.html</ext-link>). Students visited the Etext Center on the University of Virginia Web site to see how TEI‐encoded texts are searched and displayed (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303005">Figure 5</xref>). The class learned the structure of TEI elements and commonly used tags, and did a simple encoding exercise in class. Then, students transcribed and encoded a manuscript letter according to TEI, using NoteTab (2000) software. In addition, students created a TEI header for the letter and learned how the elements in the headers could be extracted to generate bibliographic records. The TEI project was significant in a number of ways. It showed students that information organization could go beyond surrogate creation. In fact, in the digital world, we are increasingly dealing directly with document objects and having the option of placing the surrogates with the sources or putting them in separate files for retrieval and display. The project helped students understand the complexity, power, and potential of TEI as well as what it takes to implement such a standard. It also illustrated the roles that catalogers could play in etext projects. The most important benefit of the project, however, was the students’ increased knowledge and confidence in dealing with etexts.</p><p>Such confidence became evident as we took on the final module, which involved encoded archival description (EAD). EAD and TEI are DTDs (document type definitions) of SGML. While TEI encodes texts, EAD encodes archival finding aids, but the two have similar structures. The class went through the structure of EAD elements (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303006">Figure 6</xref>) and reviewed several examples together to see how finding aids were marked up (see EAD Finding Aids at LC at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/ead">http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/ead</ext-link>). Students’ experiences with TEI made it easier for them to understand EAD‐encoded documents. Thus, when they visited sites that had implemented EAD, they could see beyond the surface and understand how a finding aid was encoded and displayed. They also learned the value of the EAD header, which contains some useful bibliographic information. The value of this EAD implementation project lay in the expansion of the students’ knowledge base. It helped them realize that various information professionals have actively engaged themselves in organizing information on the Web, and that librarians have collaborated with other information professionals in developing standards to mark up source objects. They learned that the scope of information organization could be as broad, or as narrow, as one wishes to define. It could cover a particular type of resources such as finding aids or literary texts. It could also cover all types of resources – sound, video, multimedia, text, and so on – found on the Internet. They learned that we need to know about more than one metadata standard if we are to create an information system that provides access to information of various formats. This last point was best illustrated by the University of Washington’s digital initiative team that developed data dictionaries (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303007">Figure 7</xref>) to map records from various sources into Dublin Core and used the CONTENT software suite (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://content.lib.washington.edu/">http://content. lib.washington.edu/</ext-link>) to manage and provide access to their media collections (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640160303008">Figure 8</xref> for the CONTENT search screen).</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Our school adopted a progressive strategy to prepare students for the tasks of organizing information in the digital environment. We used the basic cataloging course to raise student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata, and to develop interest in this area. In the advanced cataloging course, we examined issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and explored the use of Dublin Core for cataloging several types of material. In “Organization of Internet resources”, we showed students the range of methods for organizing such resources and gave them hands‐on practice with the more promising standards and tools.</p><p>Our philosophy of teaching is very much in line with what Hill and Intner (1999) advocated: combine theory with practice to help students understand the organization of various types of information resources. The organization of information in the twenty‐first century goes beyond the creation of bibliographic records for collections owned by an institution. More and more organizations have felt the need to organize valuable resources for access regardless of the location of the resources. Many organizations will also undertake digitization efforts to put valuable resources – full texts, finding aids, etc. – at users’ fingertips. In anticipation of such needs, we are striving to help our students understand several metadata standards and the issues involved in implementing them. We also stress that students must remain flexible in the methods used for information organization. As technology advances, we should use it as much as we can to facilitate our work. It is critical that future information organizers keep in mind the reasons why they organize certain resources, the users for whom they organize the resources, the elements that are essential for resource description and discovery, and the ways in which they intend the elements to work. Having started as a special topic course in 1995, the course on the organization of Internet resources has become a regular course in our program.</p></sec><sec><title>Implications for practitioners</title><p><italic><bold>This summary has been provided to allow a rapid appreciation of the significance of the content of this article. Browsers may then choose to read the article <italic>in toto</italic>, to derive full benefit from the author’s work.</bold></italic></p><p><italic>The continuing growth of the Internet offers a considerable and fascinating challenge to library professionals</italic>.</p><p><italic>Many critics have questioned whether cataloging standards enable them to meet that challenge. They point to the complexity and cost involved in organizing Internet resources. The converse view says that it is worthwhile finding ways of cataloging for users, because the combination of time‐saving, easier access and bringing together of materials makes these Internet resources more valuable.</italic></p><p><italic>The issue is being tackled by the School of Library and Information Science at the Catholic University of America. The belief within the school is that cataloging must change to enable professionals to handle digital resources more efficiently. A three‐fold strategy therefore prepares students for organization of Internet resources.</italic></p><p><italic>The first involves raising awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata. This includes examination of Web sites and their bibliographic records to understand how those records were created. An introduction to metadata schemes such as MARC and Dublin Core reveals the potential and capabilities of these resources.</italic></p><p><italic>This dovetails neatly with the policy of providing an overall understanding of the concepts, rather than making students instant experts in metadata or Internet resources cataloging.</italic></p><p><italic>Following on from this, an advanced course examines issues relating to cataloging of Internet resources and explores the use of Dublin Core. In one exercise, students catalog five Web pages provided by the instructor and the process is discussed. Individual projects provide more experience as well as the opportunity to analyze how CORC can help with bibliographic records and to practise the creation of Dublin Core records.</italic></p><p><italic>A final project within the advanced cataloging course has students preparing a paper on the future of information organization, an affirmation of its value in the digital age.</italic></p><p><italic>The school has been involved in organizing Internet resources for five years. The original course was redesigned last year to embrace changes in technology and the ways information is presented on the Internet.</italic></p><p><italic>Methods of information taken in by the new course include electronic pathfinders, bibiliographic records, electronic texts and online finding aids. Four projects covered by these areas provide students with hands‐on experience of standards including MARC and Dublin Core.</italic></p><p><italic>Their experience with Dublin Core was typical for newcomers to the standard and quickly established the need for guidelines in its use. This resulted from the realization that Dublin Core, for all its essential simplicity, becomes more complex when the issue of definition and use of elements in a specific environment is addressed.</italic></p><p><italic>The teaching philosophy at the school is a straightforward combination of theory and practice but it aims to help students confront an increasingly complex information‐orientated world. In this world, more organizations are putting together resources for access regardless of their location. </italic></p><p><italic>Students need to understand metadata standards and how to implement them in order to keep abreast of developments. Technology continues to advance and the professionals of the future must have the skills to enable them to make the most of the resources at their disposal. To do this they need to understand the “whys” as well as the “hows” of organizing Internet resources.</italic></p><p>(Précis provided to MCB University Press by consultants)</p></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303001"><label><bold>Figure 1<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Selected metadata schemes</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303002"><label><bold>Figure 2<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>CORC editing screen</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303003"><label><bold>Figure 3<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>DC element set</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303004"><label><bold>Figure 4<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>CORC pathfinder editing screen</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303004.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303005"><label><bold>Figure 5<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>An etext at the Etext Center of the University of Virginia</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303005.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303006"><label><bold>Figure 6<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Structure of EAD elements</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303006.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303007"><label><bold>Figure 7<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Summary of Dublin Core data dictionaries</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303007.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640160303008"><label><bold>Figure 8<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>CONTENT search screen</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640160303008.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>American Library Association</string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/confpap.htm">http://www.nlc‐bnc.ca/jsc/confpap.htm</ext-link> (accessed 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ayres</surname>, <given-names>F.H</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Time for a change: a new approach to cataloguing concepts</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>15</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation><article-title><italic>CC:DA Task Force on Metadata: summary report</italic></article-title> (<year>1999</year>), June, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/tf-meta3.html">http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/tf‐meta3.html</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chepesiuk</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Organizing the Internet: the ‘core’ of the challenge</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>60</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dorner</surname>, <given-names>D</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging in the 21st century – part 2: digitization and information standards</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>73</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>87</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Glaviano</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Teaching an information organization course with Nordic DC metadata creator</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>33</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>40</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gorman</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Metadata or cataloguing? a false choice</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hakala</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Internet metadata and cataloging</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>22</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hakala</surname>, <given-names>J. e</given-names><given-names>t al</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>) “<article-title><italic>Nordic Metadata Project final report</italic></article-title>”, July, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://linnea.helsinki.fi/meta/nmfinal.htm">http://linnea.helsinki.fi/meta/nmfinal.htm</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hill</surname>, <given-names>J.S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Intner</surname>, <given-names>S.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Preparing for a cataloging career: from cataloging to knowledge management</italic></article-title>”, April 6 last update, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ala.org/congress/hill-intner.html">http://www.ala.org/congress/hill‐intner.html</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hopkinson</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Traditional communication formats: MARC is far from dead</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>17</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>21</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hsieh‐Yee</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Organizing Audiovisual and Electronic Resources for Access: A Cataloging Guide</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hudgins</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Agnew</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brown</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Getting Mileage out of Metadata: Applications for the Library</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>American Library Association, Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions</string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Record: Final Report</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>K.G. Sauer, Munchen</publisher-loc>, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf">http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR</string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Anglo American Cataloguing Rules</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., 1998 revision, <publisher-loc>ALA, Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Levy</surname>, <given-names>D.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging in the digital order</italic></article-title>”, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/leve/levy.htm">http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/leve/levy.htm</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lynch</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>) “<article-title><italic>Searching the Internet</italic></article-title>”, March, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397lynch.html">http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397lynch.html</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mandel</surname>, <given-names>C.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wolven</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>Intellectual access to digital documents: joining proven principles with new technologies</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> Nos. <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>25</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>42</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Medeiros</surname>, <given-names>N</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>The effects of digitalization on libraries: a cataloger’s perspective</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>15</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, p. <fpage>5</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Medeiros</surname>, <given-names>N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>On the Dublin Core front</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>41</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation>“<article-title><italic>NoteTab</italic></article-title>” (<year>2000</year>) May 12 last update, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.notetab.com/">http://www.notetab.com/</ext-link> (accessed 221 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oder</surname>, <given-names>N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging the net: can we do it?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>123</volume> No. <issue>16</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Olson</surname>, <given-names>N.B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Cataloging Internet Resources: A Manual and Practical Guide</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., <publisher-loc>OCLC, Dublin, Ohio</publisher-loc>, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.html">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.html</ext-link> (accessed: 21 May 2000).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sandberg‐Fox</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Byrum</surname>, <given-names>J.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>From ISBD (CF) to ISBD (ER): process, policy and provisions</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Resources & Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>42</volume>, pp. <fpage>89</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>101</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><mixed-citation>“<article-title><italic>Teaching the organization of electronic resources: approaches of four programs</italic></article-title>” (<year>2000</year>), a Technical Services Special Interest Group Program held at the 2000 ALISE Annual Conference in San Antonio, <publisher-loc>Texas</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>The art and science of digital bibliography</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>123</volume> No. <issue>17</issue>, pp. <fpage>28</fpage><x>, </x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Veatch</surname>, <given-names>J.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Insourcing the Web</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>64</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ingrid</namePart><namePart type="family">HsiehYee</namePart><affiliation>Ingrid HsiehYee is an Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="case-report" displayLabel="case-report"></genre><originInfo><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-09-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Recognizing changes in the information environment and related changes in cataloging standards, Catholic University of Americas LIS program adopted a strategy to offer students three levels of knowledge in organizing Internet resources. In the basic cataloging course, the instructor raises student awareness of Internet resources cataloging and metadata through demonstrations and discussions. In the advanced cataloging course, students apply cataloging standards and Dublin Core to Internet resources and selected types of material, and consider issues related to the implementation of metadata standards. In the advanced Internet resources organization course, students obtain handson practice in creating electronic pathfinders and using metadata schemes such as Dublin Core, text encoding initiative TEI, and encoded archival description EAD. The instructors objectives are to broaden students understanding of the types of resources that need to be organized, give students knowledge and skills for the organization of digital resources, and prepare them to redefine cataloging in the twentyfirst century.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Cataloguing</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Resources</topic><topic>Information retrieval</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LLM">Librarianship/library management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-RMP">Records management & preservation</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LTC">Library technology</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IREP">Information repositories</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1065-075X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">oclc</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/oclc</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>16</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>130</start><end>143</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/10650750010345256</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">1640160303</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">1640160303.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">10650750010345256.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© MCB UP Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Ticri/explor/TeiVM2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000174 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000174 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Ticri
|area= TeiVM2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:50C8A0F4C7734BF8BBA9DEDB3F67B7267D809EFF
|texte= Organizing Internet resources teaching cataloging standards and beyond
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |