It's interesting that nobody's mentioned tags here. I'm not a maniac
about them, but I certainly see the advantage for some searches. A
naive user expects to be able to enter "queer fiction" or "steampunk"
and get relevant results. Neither LCSH or FAST will work there. But
tags work great for this sort of thing, at least on my site. (I REALLY
am not trying to promote it here.)
It seems to me the ideal solution is a mix of LCSH, FAST, Dewey, tags
and keywords (in all fields, probably including Onix data, like the
flap copy, and eventually including the complete text of the book.
Tim
On 6/21/06, Laura Akerman <liblna_at_emory.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 - 20:56:32 EDT