Karen,
I've been looking at FAST a lot (for discussions with the SAC
subcommittee that's looking at it). FAST could be a "way station" on
the road to a more ideal subject vocabulary, but probably not the
destination. I would think that anything better but radically different
would need to be something that LCSH could be converted to - but
probably wouldn't have backward compatibility. FAST's chief virtue is
that it is derived from LCSH, so it can take advantage of the continuous
maintenance of LCSH, but presents a vocabulary that would be easier to
apply in a lot of contexts (for example, in Dublin Core which encodes
geographic, temporal, form/genre and "subject" aspects of a work in
different fields).
Laura
K.G. Schneider wrote:
>>What if you didn't need to completely throw away LCSH, but
>>could achieve these results? Laura asked what is out there,
>>so I'll [2] throw FAST [1] into the discussion. FAST will be
>>able to take a LCSH constructed heading and break it into
>>facets. You could dynamically create the FAST headings, or
>>store them in the record, which would allow you to build
>>things like that. It's not panacea since FAST headings are
>>based on LCSH terminology, but it does offer a bridge to
>>easier application and use while allowing for facet browsing
>>or 'term clouds'.
>>
>>
>
>I was actually thinking of FAST when I wrote my responses earlier but didn't
>want to limit the discussion to strictly pro/con FAST (just as this
>discussion should not be pro/con LCSH).
>
>My critique of FAST is that we aren't hearing enough about it. One program
>at Annual, a mysterious product page... like FRBR, it's interesting and
>perhaps greatly important, but we need to see the hamburger under the
>pickle. Or the baby in the blanket. Sorry, long day...
>
>Karen G. Schneider
>kgs_at_bluehighways.com
>
>
--
*Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Robert W. Woodruff Library, Room 128
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga. 30322
phone (404) 727-6888
fax 404-727-0053*
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 13:34:23 EDT