[SAC-FAST] Re: SAC Subcommittee on FAST

[Arlene Taylor]

It is my understanding that FAST *does* use exact time periods.  That's
why I wrote what I did.  The examples we'll be looking at that Ed creates
for us at OCLC will deconstruct LCSH into FAST headings.  Therefore, the
chronological headings will be LCSH time periods.  But if a person created
FAST headings for the item from scratch, the time periods would be exact
coverage of the item being described.  So, I'm asking if we can evaluate
this part of the sample that Ed is going to create for us.  

--Arlene

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Sherman Clarke wrote:

> > 6.If there are chronological headings, do the time periods
> > make sense for the item being described?  (Given the way these
> > examples will be created,
> > i.e., deconstructing LCSH, the chronological headings will
> > represent LCSH time periods, not the exact period covered by
> > the item as FAST is intended to do; so I'm not sure what we
> > can evaluate here.)
> 
> Since the chronological headings could not be reconstructed with their 
> topic, we should perhaps consider recommending that FAST would fit 
> better if they moved to giving the exact period covered by the item, 
> rather than fussing with the pre-existing chronological subdivisions. 
> This does invite more variety in chronological subdivisions and it 
> would be good to have indexing that would be smart about time periods. 
> For example, it would find an item with "1913-1922" if you searched 
> 1910s or 1920s or 20th century or pre-1945.
> 
> Sherman
> _______________________________________________
> SAC-FAST mailing list
> SAC-FAST at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-fast
>