Knowledge Structures Toolbox · 2026 Edition · iSchool Illinois
A resource for the critical and open organization of information.
Core Readings is a curated, openly accessible collection of resources for graduate-level courses in cataloging, metadata, and knowledge organization. It’s an evolving, citable, and machine-readable update to the 2001 Knowledge Structures Toolbox, designed as a flexible teaching tool.
Developed for a required course in an ALA MLS program, it is openly available for study, reuse, and adaptation — a public map of the field that is being built in real time. There are excellent, prizewinning textbooks in this field; devaluing that labor isn’t the goal here. Core Readings instead cultivates healthy infophilic engagement: training the field’s future access-advocates to read primary sources — not a synthesis of a fast-moving discipline — is both a skill and a requirement for understanding infrastructure for the commons.
Recommended, not required
IO&A has no course prerequisites; two readings are recommended instead, to build the information literacy skills this course assumes:
Monograph · information literacy Library access
Badke, W. (2021). Research Strategies: Finding Your Way Through the Information Fog (7th ed.). iUniverse.
While universal bibliographic control was one of the goals of information organization, Badke named one of the biggest 21st-century problems: “information fog,” an unprecedented volume of available information with limited guidance for navigating it. That framing predates the web itself — his 1990 precursor, The Survivor’s Guide to Library Research — now carried through seven editions of this text and a long-running information-literacy column, making Badke’s the rare textbook whose central insight has only sharpened with time. (Mann, the 2001 anchor this updates, is in Provenance below.)
iuniverse.com · williambadke.com
Column · InfoLit Land Free to read
Badke, W. (2026). The Robotic Researcher. Computers in Libraries, 46(3).
Names the inverse of information fog: students who want research reduced to a fixed set of steps and a deliverable product, unable to adapt method when a topic resists the template that worked last time — the lateral-thinking deficit market culture tends to reward and education exists to counter.
Using this guide: each entry combines a citation, a stable access link where available, a document type, an access label, and a brief annotation. Access labels say how you can read a work: Open access (free, with an open license that permits reuse), Free to read (free, but no reuse license), Public domain (out of copyright, or a US federal government work), or Library access (through a library subscription or loan). It is selective rather than comprehensive.
Why we organize at all: the ethics of access, the open-access settlement, the objectives of the catalog, and the deep logic beneath bibliographic structure.
American Library Association. (2019). Library Bill of Rights. (Adopted 1939 by ALA Council; amended 1944, 1948, 1961, 1967, 1980, 2019.)
The foundational ALA statement on intellectual freedom, in force with revisions since 1939. Its most recent amendment, in 2019, added a seventh article on privacy and confidentiality — the same year, not by coincidence, as the interpretation immediately below.
American Library Association. (2019). Privacy: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.
Establishes the ethical boundaries of information access: patron privacy is a fundamental pillar of library and information science.
Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative.
The foundational declaration of the open-access movement, framing modern access rights around digital distribution, interoperability, and the public good.
Creative Commons. (2013). Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
A key legal and operational framework for open licensing that governs modern information sharing, reuse, and copyright management in digital repositories.
Cutter, C. A. (1904). Rules for a dictionary catalog (4th ed.). Government Printing Office.
Reading: “Objects,” pp. 10–12.
An influential early text in user-centric resource discovery, introducing the foundational “Objects” of the library catalog that still inform modern user-experience models.
Atherton, P. (1970). Putting knowledge to work: An American view of Ranganathan’s five laws of library science. Vikas Publishing House.
Reading: Selections could include Chapter C, “Inaugural Address: A Layman’s Reflections on Library Science” by K. Guru Dutt, Director of Public Instruction (Retired), Mysore, India; and Chapter E, Law 1: “Books Are For Use: How to See To It!” by Pauline Atherton.
hdl.handle.net/10150/105783 · dLIST Classics Project, preserved in the University of Arizona institutional repository.
Lancaster, F. W. (1986). Vocabulary control for information retrieval (2nd ed.). Information Resources Press.
A foundational conceptual text on why controlled vocabularies and thesauri are necessary to successfully bridge user queries and document indexing. Kept as the conceptual anchor for this group; the book itself is not assigned. Read Hersh (2024), below, which builds on Lancaster’s later work, for the current argument.
Gross, T., & Taylor, A. G. (2005). What have we got to lose? The effect of controlled vocabulary on keyword searching results. College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 212–230.
Tests Lancaster's conceptual case empirically: found that more than a third of records retrieved by a successful keyword search would be lost entirely if subject headings were removed, with individual cases as high as 80–100 percent — a direct answer to proposals to drop controlled vocabulary from catalog records to save cost.
Gross, T., Taylor, A. G., & Joudrey, D. N. (2015). Still a lot to lose: The role of controlled vocabulary in keyword searching. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(1), 1–39.
A decade-later replication of the 2005 study above, retesting whether keyword-only retrieval still depends on controlled vocabulary as heavily as originally found.
Smith, L. C. (2020). Interdisciplinary searching as a use case for vocabulary mapping. In M. Lykke, T. Svarre, M. Skov, & D. Martínez-Ávila (Eds.), Knowledge organization at the interface: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference (pp. 428–435). Ergon-Verlag.
A short bridge between controlled vocabulary, disciplinary language, interoperability, and searching. The same subject can be named and conceptualized differently in different disciplines, so connecting vocabularies becomes an access problem, not merely a metadata-maintenance task.
Coleman, A. S., & Bracke, P. J. (2006). Controlled vocabularies as a sphere of influence. In K. S. Raghavan & K. N. Prasad (Eds.), Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan festschrift (pp. 89–110). Ess Ess Publications.
Reading: optional case study.
A citation study (bibliographic coupling of GeoRef records, validated in ISI indexes) tracing how the LIS concept of controlled vocabularies travels into geographic information science: a concrete instance of the disciplinary-language problem Smith describes. It appeared in a festschrift, a scholarly genre libraries have long struggled to make findable (see the note below).
Vocabulary as access
A subject can be named and conceptualized differently in different disciplines. A vocabulary therefore does more than normalize spelling or select a preferred label, and connecting vocabularies becomes an access problem, not merely a metadata-maintenance task. A search interface can appear simple while depending on substantial organizational work behind it. A case in point: festschriften. The MARC fixed field 008/30 flags a book as a festschrift, but OCLC states plainly that “this fixed field element is not indexed”; the genre is scattered across several subject headings, and only since 2011 has it had a genre/form term (LCGFT) of its own.Hersh, W. (2024). Search still matters: Information retrieval in the era of generative AI. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 31(9), 2159–2161. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae014
Begins where Lancaster leaves off: with information needs. Drawing on Lancaster and Warner’s Information Retrieval Today, Hersh distinguishes kinds of need (solving a problem, getting background information, keeping current) from known-item searching, and discusses fact-finding, learning, gathering, and exploring. That gives a manageable framework for asking whether an AI-generated answer actually meets a searcher’s need.
Krummel, D. W. (2022). Miranda’s quest. Library Trends, 71(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2023.0004
A bibliographer’s account of searching as learning: “Searching is basic to all work with books. Often routine and obvious, it can also be laborious, problematical, time-consuming, and dependent on special skills, expertise, and insights.” Read beside Hersh: what a generated answer cannot give is the learning that difficult searching produces. From the Library Trends festschrift issue honoring Linda C. Smith.
Chapekis, A., & Lieb, A. (2025, July 22). Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results. Pew Research Center.
A brief empirical companion to Hersh. In browsing data from 900 U.S. adults (March 2025), people who saw a Google AI summary clicked a traditional result in 8% of visits, against 15% without one, and clicked a source inside the summary in 1%. An association between AI summaries and reduced clicking through to sources, not proof of cause.
Greengard, S. (2025). In search of better search. Communications of the ACM, 68(11), 19–21.
A journalistic overview rather than a research article. It moves from keyword searching and PageRank to retrieval-augmented generation, then considers source attribution, accuracy, user agency, serendipity, advertising, and the sustainability of the web, drawing on interviews with researchers including Chirag Shah, Marti Hearst, and Maarten de Rijke. Its strength for this course is the link between system design and user experience: what changes when a system presents a synthesized response instead of asking users to examine and select sources? Pairs with the Pew findings above.
Shah, C., & Bender, E. M. (2024). Envisioning information access systems: What makes for good tools and a healthy web? ACM Transactions on the Web, 18(3), Article 33.
Reading: optional extension, or a selected excerpt.
The fuller argument behind Hersh’s perspective: information access is a key human activity with impacts on individuals and society, not merely an application to be solved by the “AI” techniques of the day. Revisits foundational work on information seeking and retrieval, and treats the web as an information ecosystem endangered by synthetic media.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
An influential sociological text demonstrating that classification standards are deeply embedded, moral, and political choices affecting societal infrastructure.
Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391.
Revisits the International Classification of Diseases case study from Sorting Things Out to ask how infrastructure can be studied ethnographically, arguing that infrastructure is relational, ecological, and becomes visible mainly through breakdown.
Baeza-Yates, R. (2018). Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 54–61.
Reading: optional.
Sets Star’s point about infrastructure beside the web: bias enters through the data, through the algorithms that rank it, and through users’ own interactions with results, and each reinforces the others. It predates generative search, but explains why results are skewed before any summary is written.
Neri, F. (2024). Il principio vitale della biblioteca: Il sapere e l’apprendimento come beni comuni [The vital principle of the library]. AIB Studi, 64(2), 163–180.
Explores libraries through the lens of the commons, connecting traditional organizational principles directly to knowledge as a shared societal good.
Neri, F. (2025). Rien ne manque à sa gloire; il manquait à la nôtre: Shera, Ranganathan e la Legge Zero della biblioteconomia. AIB Studi.
Bridges the historical information-science theory of the American Shera and the Indian S. R. Ranganathan with contemporary philosophical frameworks governing library science.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). Digital identity guidelines.
Reading: selected glossary / definitions.
Provides technical definitions and authentication frameworks crucial for understanding access-management systems.
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. MIT Press.
Reading: a short excerpt on bibliographic objectives and/or bibliographic language.
A rigorous, theoretical text on bibliographic languages, objectives, and the deep logic of why we structure information.
Svenonius, E. (2004). The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations. Library Trends, 52(3), 571–587.
A condensed, article-length restatement of the book's central synthesis of descriptive and subject cataloging within a shared conceptual framework, published four years after The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization.
From MARC records to conceptual models and RDF vocabularies — the working machinery of description and the models that give it shape.
Coleman, A. S. (2005). From cataloging to metadata: Dublin Core records for the library catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3–4), 153–181. Also published in R. P. Smiraglia (Ed.), Metadata: A cataloger’s primer (pp. 153–181). Haworth Information Press (now Routledge).
Explains the operational shift from traditional MARC cataloging environments to simple, interoperable Dublin Core schemas for electronic resources.
doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_08 · book chapter · free copy (Internet Archive)
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. (n.d.). DCMI metadata terms. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Reading: overview plus selected terms — title, creator, subject, description, publisher, date, type, format, identifier, source, language, relation, coverage, rights.
A widely used standard for cross-domain resource discovery, introducing students to core element sets such as title, creator, and subject.
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2017). IFLA Library Reference Model: A conceptual model for bibliographic information.
Reading: introduction, user tasks, entities, and high-level relationships.
Shifts students from physical record-keeping to entity-relationship modeling; its scope is broader than the familiar Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item (WEMI) layers alone, spanning a general hierarchy of entities, user tasks, and their relationships.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). MARC 21 format for bibliographic data. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Reading: selected fields — 100, 245, 264, 300, 336, 337, 338, 500, 520, 650, 700, 776.
A machine-readable format for representing and exchanging bibliographic records, long standard in library systems.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). MARC 21 format for authority data. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Reading: selected 1XX, 4XX, and 5XX documentation.
Focuses on name and subject authority control, ensuring consistency and controlled access points across a catalog.
RDA Registry. (n.d.). RDA element sets. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
The RDF representation of RDA (Resource Description and Access) elements and vocabularies: RDA is the content standard built on FRBR/LRM principles, and the Registry expresses its elements as linked data.
Behrens, R., & Hennelly, J. (2026). RDA and the RDA Toolkit. Catalogue & Index, 215, 63–69.
A ground-up orientation to what RDA and the Toolkit actually are, from the RSC Chair and the Director of ALA Digital Reference — the two people running both.
Oliver, C. (2026). Original RDA and Official RDA: One standard. Catalogue & Index, 215, 52–56.
The Chair of the RDA Board explains the reasoning behind splitting RDA into Original and Official versions — the decision-making, not just the deadline. Read alongside the Toolbox entry on RDA for the practical consequences of the split.
Jones, E. (2022). Modeling of serials. Library Trends, 71(1), 90–112.
Appeared in the Library Trends festschrift issue honoring Linda C. Smith (71(1), 2022), which the maintainer co-edited; the issue is open access in IDEALS. Watch Jones’s symposium talk (Watch & Listen) first, for what a conceptual model is.
Snow, K., & Hoffman, G. L. (2015). What makes an effective cataloging course? A study of the factors that promote learning. Library Resources & Technical Services, 59(4), 187–199.
A survey of LIS graduates on what helped them learn in a beginning cataloging course: hands-on practice creating records, an effective instructor, a balance of theory and practice, and real-world context. Useful for reflecting on how you are learning in this course.
Core factual grounding
MARC is designed for the machine-readable representation and communication of bibliographic information; the RDA Registry expresses RDA entities, elements, and vocabularies in RDF; and DCMI maintains the formal terms specification.Recommended alongside the readings above, content that’s sometimes better watched than read.
Sze, E., & Alemu, G. (2026). Introduction to RDA [Part 1]. RSC Webinars for African Cataloguers.
Watch: from 5:50, past the introductions.
Covers RDA terminology, core concepts, and how to navigate the Toolkit — a paced, accessible on-ramp before the denser reading in Section II. Part 2 continues the series for those who want more.
Jones, E. (2023, September 28). Models of cataloging for serials [Video]. Library Trends Linda C. Smith Festschrift Virtual Symposium, School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Watch: from 53:16. Slides: 7 and 8, on what conceptual models are.
Jones’s talk at the virtual symposium celebrating Linda C. Smith, companion to his article “Modeling of serials” in Section II. Slides 7 and 8 explain what conceptual models are: the idea behind IFLA LRM and the RDA readings.
Classification as a moral and political act — its consequences, its critiques, and the work of naming and repair.
Raghavan, K. S., & Krishnamurthy, M. (2013). An overview of classification technologies. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 33(4), 307–314.
An overview of approaches to classification and the technologies that carry them out. Read it first: it gives the critiques that follow something concrete to push against.
Berman, S. (1993). Prejudices and antipathies: A tract on the LC subject heads concerning people (2nd ed.). McFarland.
Reading: selected entries only.
A widely cited critique of institutional bias in Library of Congress Subject Headings, demonstrating how classification carries social impact.
Coleman, A. S. (2006). William Stetson Merrill and bricolage for information studies. Journal of Documentation, 62(4), 462–481.
Analyzes Merrill’s historical contributions to classification flexibility and practical problem-solving in library collections.
doi.org/10.1108/00220410610673855 · author’s preprint (hdl.handle.net/10150/105517) · SJSU ScholarWorks
Drabinski, E. (2013). Queering the catalog: Queer theory and the politics of correction. The Library Quarterly, 83(2), 94–111.
Applies queer theory to metadata architecture, showing how catalogers can actively intervene to repair exclusionary structures.
Merrill, W. S. (1912). A code for classifiers — its scope and problems [Reprinted from The Library Journal, May–June 1912].
An early, foundational look at the challenges, anomalies, and intellectual decisions involved in systematic book placement.
Merrill, W. S. (1928). A code for classifiers: Principles governing the consistent placing of books in a system of classification. American Library Association.
Assign: 2–4 selected principles.
Provides concrete principles for maintaining consistency when slotting complex, multi-subject items into linear shelves.
Olson, H. A. (2007). How we construct subjects: A feminist analysis. Library Trends, 56(2), 509–541.
Reading: selected excerpt.
Uses feminist critique to dissect how standard knowledge organization systems marginalize non-dominant perspectives through structural choices.
Description on the open web and its next questions: linked-data frameworks, structured data, verifiability, and the profession’s emerging stance toward machine learning.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). BIBFRAME: Bibliographic Framework Initiative. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Explores the Library of Congress’s transition strategy from MARC to linked-data standards for the web.
Program for Cooperative Cataloging. (2025–2026). Task Group on AI and Machine Learning for Cataloging and Metadata: Final report and related guidance. Library of Congress.
Reading: selected final recommendations and/or current official PCC guidance.
Evaluates the integration, opportunities, and risks of artificial intelligence and machine learning in modern metadata workflows.
schema.org. (n.d.). Getting started with schema.org using Microdata. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Essential web-standard vocabulary used by search engines to structure data directly in web markup.
schema.org. (n.d.). Book. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
One web structured-data type for books — useful for discovery markup, though not a complete library metadata model.
Wikimedia Foundation. (n.d.). Wikidata: Data model. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Introduces students to decentralized, collaborative knowledge graphs and linked-data structures operating at internet scale.
Wikimedia Foundation. (n.d.). Wikipedia: Verifiability. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
Highlights editorial standards and evidence requirements in collaborative, text-based knowledge spaces.
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, Article 160018.
FAIR is about the data: making it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable, by machines as well as people. Read with CARE, below, which asks about people and purpose.
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal, 19(1), Article 43.
CARE is about people and purpose: collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics in Indigenous data governance. Where FAIR asks whether data can be reused, CARE asks whether it should be, and on whose terms. The Toolbox lists Local Contexts, which puts these principles into practice.
Markdown Guide. (n.d.). Basic syntax. Retrieved August 15, 2026.
A practical syntax reference for information professionals working with lightweight markup in documentation and digital repositories.
Talisman, J. (2026). Ontology pipeline: A framework for knowledge engineering. Technics Publications. ISBN 9798898161392.
A step-by-step guide to building controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri, metadata schemas, ontologies and knowledge graphs. It begins from the vocabulary control covered in Section I and carries it through to linked data and AI-ready knowledge systems. Written in public on the author’s Substack. Its companion tool, the Intentional Arrangement SKOS editor, is listed in the Toolbox.
Standing reference points — registries, encyclopedias, and authorities to consult across the semester.
Where the field is drawing its lines. A professional conversation about adoption, refusal, and human authorship. For a side-by-side comparative reading of library, archive, and museum AI statements, see the companion page below.
American Library Association. (2026). Guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in libraries.
Adopted by ALA Council in July 2026; a living, values-based framework for local AI policy in which non-adoption, pause, and discontinuation are named as legitimate outcomes alongside adoption.
ASIS&T, ALISE, & iSchools. (2020). Statement on AI ethics and the contributions of diverse voices.
A field-level call for rigorous, ethical AI research and for diverse voices in the work, issued amid debates over AI research, bias, and scholarly voice.
University of Illinois. (n.d.). Generative AI — AI apps.
The University’s AI-app catalog frames AI largely as working infrastructure, with meaningful cautions but uneven treatment of students and faculty. A university is also a place for independent thought, slow reading, and non-commercial infrastructure, and intellectual labor should not be quietly reframed as productivity tasks to be accelerated and purchased.
University of Illinois Library. (n.d.). Generative AI for research: Critical thinking and AI.
A practical guide to planning a research project, using AI tools within library databases, and citing AI-generated content.
Companion resources
Toolbox →
The consult-and-use sibling to this reading list — standards, identifiers, classification and vocabulary systems, software, repository platforms, and library systems for organizing information.
AI Governance Across Libraries, Archives & Museums →
A comparative reading of nine library, archive, and museum statements — ALA, ARL, IFLA, the ASIS&T/ALISE/iSchools field statement, the two SAA publication policies, the UK Museums Association, the Canadian Museums Association, and Library and Archives Canada — compared by what each permits, what each refuses, and what each treats as non-delegable to AI, with a short set of contextual comparators (ICA, ICOM, UNESCO, and the Authors Guild).
University AI Infrastructure: Questions for Teaching & Research →
A critical reading of the University of Illinois AI-app catalog and the questions it raises for scholarly autonomy, human authorship, and the infrastructure of knowledge production.
The Knowledge Structures Toolbox was developed in 2001–2002 for teaching information organization at the University of Arizona. It was an early linked teaching environment connecting concepts, sources, and tools for reusable instruction. Its commons-oriented premise informed later work in metadata education, including the Metadata Education and Research Information Commons (MERIC).
MERIC was a proposed collaborative teaching-and-research commons for metadata education. Anita S. Coleman led development of its proof-of-concept clearinghouse. A University of North Texas prototype by William Moen and his class followed, but the initiative did not become a sustained production service.
The 2026 Core Readings guide returns to that premise in a versioned, openly described, and machine-readable form, accompanied by three sibling resources — Toolbox, AI Governance Across Libraries, Archives & Museums, and University AI Infrastructure Notes — that the Toolbox’s commons-oriented premise anticipated, if not by name.
Two texts anchored the 2001 Toolbox as required reading: Taylor, A. (1999). The Organization of Information. Libraries Unlimited; and Mann, T. (1993). Library Research Models: A Guide to Classification, Cataloging, and Computers. Oxford University Press. Both are kept here as a dated record of what the course once assigned — see the recommended texts above for what stands in Mann’s place today.
On this edition
This is a teaching resource. It is offered openly for reuse and adaptation, and it is maintained as a dated, citable record so that the intellectual and pedagogical labor behind it remains visible and open to future study. As of this edition, it holds 51 readings and 7 professional resources across four sections, two recommended texts, two Watch & Listen talks, and the two 2001 required texts kept in Provenance: 57 in all.
Worth the full issue
Two articles above (Behrens & Hennelly; Oliver) are drawn from Catalogue & Index, vol. 215 (2026) — a special issue entirely devoted to RDA's Countdown Clock and its global implementation, opening with Renate Behrens' own introduction. The other ten articles cover region-by-region adoption (Africa, DACH, Europe, Canada & the US, Latin America & the Caribbean), the RDA Registry, rare-materials cataloging, the RDA Board/RSC AI working group, and future directions — good read as a whole. Full issue and table of contents.
Library Trends, vol. 71, no. 1 (2022), Library and Information Science, Interdisciplinary Perspectives: A Festschrift in Honor of Linda C. Smith, is open access in IDEALS and worth reading whole. Two of its essays are above (Krummel’s “Miranda’s Quest,” a delight; Jones on modeling serials), and the others cover LIS education by design, accreditation, the teaching of reference, the CASE Act, data curation, and machine learning in library systems. Disclosure: the maintainer co-edited the issue with Martha Kyrillidou. Full issue in IDEALS · symposium page.