Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Cataloging in Digital Libraries

  • Mary Lynette LarsgaardEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_47


Cataloging; Classification


Cataloging is using standard rules to create a mainly text surrogate that describes an object sufficiently in detail so that the object is uniquely differentiated from all other objects. Without looking at the object, a user can quickly and efficiently learn enough about the object to know if it suits the user’s needs. It is generally considered to include bibliographic description and the application of subjects, both as words and as classification. Metadata creation using standard rules may be considered to be a form of cataloging; both cataloging and metadata creation require software with the ability for the user to do searching, browsing, navigation, and display and the ability for the agency doing the work to manage digital objects; to provide preservation and security of metadata, data, and user privacy; and to provide at some level interoperability with other software and other agencies doing the same work.

Historical Background


This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    American Library Association. Anglo-American cataloging rules. Chicago: American Library Association; 1967. In various editions.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgman CL. From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: access to information in the networked world. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan LM. Cataloging and classification: an introduction. Blue Ridge Summit: Scarecrow Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foulonneau M, Riley J. Metadata for digital resources: implementation, systems design and interoperability. Oxford: Chandos; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    IFLA Study Group. Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR). UBCIM publications, new series, vol. 19. Munchen: K.G. Saur; 1998. Available online at: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm
  6. 6.
    Libraries. Encyclopedia Britannica. Micropedia. 2002;7:333–4; Macropedia 22:947–63. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. Available online at: http://search.eb.com/
  7. 7.
    Library of Congress. 1969? MARC21 Concise Bibliographic. Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 1969. Available online at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/
  8. 8.
    Miller SJ. Metadata for digital collections: a how-to-do-it manual. London: Facet; 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reitz JM. Dictionary for library and information science. Westport: Libraries Unlimited; 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Library Association. Resource description and access. Chicago: American Library Association; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svenonius E. The intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tennant R. Bitter harvest: problems and suggested solutions for OAI-PMH data and service providers. Oakland: California Digital Library; 2004. Available online at: http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/harvesting/bitter_harvest.html
  13. 13.
    Woodward E. Metadata for image collections. Am Libr. 2014;45(6):42–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California-Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Amr El Abbadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUC Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA