Syracuse University Syracuse University
SURFACE SURFACE
School of Information Studies - Faculty
Scholarship
School of Information Studies (iSchool)
2014
Breaking Records: The History of Bibliographic Records and Their Breaking Records: The History of Bibliographic Records and Their
In5uence in Conceptualizing Bibliographic Data In5uence in Conceptualizing Bibliographic Data
Rachel I. Clarke
Syracuse University
Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/istpub
Part of the Cataloging and Metadata Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Clarke, Rachel I., "Breaking Records: The History of Bibliographic Records and Their In5uence in
Conceptualizing Bibliographic Data" (2014).
School of Information Studies - Faculty Scholarship
. 170.
https://surface.syr.edu/istpub/170
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Studies (iSchool) at SURFACE.
It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Studies - Faculty Scholarship by an authorized
administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr.edu.
Title: Breaking Records: The History of Bibliographic Records and Their Influence in
Conceptualizing Bibliographic Data
Author: Rachel Ivy Clarke
Running Head: History and Conceptualization of Bibliographic Records
Keywords: bibliographic records, semantic web, linked data, library cataloging
Abstract: A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic
information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data
statements are linked across the Web. This position paper argues that the traditional
conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A
historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic
Web model reveals how the “record” model shaped library cataloging and the implications on
library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers
possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic
description.
2
Introduction
Cataloging and bibliographic description are arguably fundamental pillars of librarianship,
supporting the selection, management, and preservation of information. When collections of
information become too large to organize and access directly, librarians create surrogate
“bibliographic records” to represent specific items in a library’s collection, physical or digital.
1
The purpose of these bibliographic records is ostensibly to describe a document in sufficient
detail to identify it uniquely among other documents and specify where the record can be
located within in a file of other bibliographic records.
2
Originally, mere title and author
information was enough to distinguish a work among others and order its record within a
collection of records. But over time, the amounts and types of data that constitute sufficient
detail to uniquely describe a resource and offer access to its description have grown. As more
resources arose, more data was considered necessary to distinguish one resource from another.
The conceptual model of a bibliographic record, then, is one of a collection of data elements.
This collective model served American librarianship well in its first 100 years. However,
changes in the form and distribution methods of resources—especially in digital environments—
raise questions about whether librarians’ traditional conceptual model is still relevant and
applicable. Contemporary data models like the Semantic Web’s model of linked Data directly
conflict with this traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records. A bibliographic record
is a conceptual whole that includes all the bibliographic information about a resource together
in one place, like a catalog card or a MARC record. With Linked Data, bibliographic data need
not be a conceptual whole. Bibliographic data about a resource is no longer collected in a single
location, but rather linked from many multiple locations across the web. What then, are the
implications of the traditional conceptualization of the bibliographic record for librarianship?
This position paper argues that the way in which librarians conceptualize bibliographic data—as
a “record”—affects the affordances and limitations of that data, especially in digital
3
environments. By tracing the development of the concept of the bibliographic record from early
American librarianship through the present, and contrasting that model with the current
Semantic Web model, this paper will reveal how the “record” model shaped library cataloging
from early physical catalogs through contemporary digital software and interfaces.
Early American bibliographic records
Early American library catalogs in the colonial period were typically made available in book
form, either manuscript or printed. American library catalogs had no systematically articulated
or standardized rules for recording bibliographic information.
3
Rather, they looked to 17
th
century English library catalogs, such as the ones from the Bodleian Library, for guidance.
Bibliographic description in Thomas Hyde’s 1674 Bodleian Library catalog mandated the
inclusion of the following elements
4
:
author surname
brief title
number and size of volumes
On occasion, when warranted, entries might also include the date and place of publication
and/or a note about the identity of the donor. What was the reasoning for including these data
elements and not others? During the colonial period, little attention had been given to
articulating the purposes of the library catalog. Many printed book catalogs were not designed to
be finding aids, but rather served as marketing tools to acknowledge donations, publicize the
collection, and solicit new patrons and further donations.
5
It wasn’t until 1826, when the
American Philosophical Society suggested that purpose of library catalogs was to show library
holdings by subject and editions, that catalogs started to function as user tools.
6
Once this
designation was in place, standardized sets of rules became necessary.
4
The most famous early cataloging rules are Panizzi’s 91 rules. Many cataloging scholars believe
that our current cataloging structure can be traced back to these very rules.
7
Panizzi stipulates
that entries include the following data elements:
8
title
author
“any striking imperfection in a book...and any remarkable peculiarity”
the number of parts, volumes, etc.
place of publication, printer’s name, date of publication
printing notes (such as whether the work was printed on fine paper, vellum, etc.)
With the advent of the card catalog in American libraries in the 1850s, the shift to catalogs as
aids for library users continued. By the late 1800s, Cutter convinced librarians that the purpose
of the library catalog is to assist users in finding books by title, author and subject.
9
This
requires that subject data be added to the cadre of bibliographic data recorded about a work.
While book catalogs grouped descriptive bibliographic entries by subject, catalog cards recorded
subject heading information alongside the descriptive cataloging information, thus adding
subject data elements to the burgeoning bibliographic record. The individual nature of cards—
each card representing or acting as a surrogate for one specific resource—began to solidify the
conceptualization of the bibliographic record as its own entity, one that carries a collection of
data elements. While each line item or multi-line description in a book catalog was a record in
that it recorded data about a resource, it was the full catalog that was the conceptual whole.
Book catalog entries were not separate entities that could be managed or manipulated
individually. The transition to individual slips or cards affords the treatment of bibliographic
records as items in and of themselves.
