[SAC-FAST] Re: SAC Subcommittee on FAST

[O'Neill,Ed]

Sherman,

I think I answer too quickly regarding the manually assigned
names--there is no reason that multiple FAST period heading couldn't be
assign.  I was too focused on the conversion.  

Ed 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman Clarke [mailto:sherman.clarke at nyu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:16 PM
To: O'Neill,Ed
Cc: SAC-FAST at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [SAC-FAST] Re: SAC Subcommittee on FAST

Ed,
If the book on rock music covers 1985 to 1995, would the "right" FAST 
chronological heading be "1985-1995"? Or do you have to pick from 
deconstructed $y subfields?

Is the restriction on one period heading related to a particular topic 
or to the whole record? Let's say our item is about 19th century 
African sculpture and the influence on Picasso in the 1920s. Or a 
comparison of the prehistoric Venus of Willendorf and modern feminist 
renditions of the earth mother?

Thanks.
Sherman

----- Original Message -----
From: "O'Neill,Ed" <oneill at oclc.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 3:40 pm
Subject: RE: [SAC-FAST] Re: SAC Subcommittee on FAST

> Arlene is correct, FAST normally uses exact periods.  However, 
> when the
> periods are derived from LCSH, that (usually longer) period is used
> since more specific dates are not available.  In addition, FAST only
> permits one period headings per record, so that multiple LCSH periods
> are combined.  For example (LCCN: 2000-344708) the LCSH headings:
> 
> 	Rock Music $y 1981-1990
> and   Rock Music $y 1991-2000
> 
> convert to the single FAST period
> 
> 	1981 - 2000
> 
> Multiple periods in LSCH are relatively rare and almost always 
> representeither contiguous or overlapping periods.   
> 
> Ed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sac-fast-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> [mailto:sac-fast-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Arlene Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:46 AM
> To: Sherman Clarke
> Cc: SAC-FAST at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: [SAC-FAST] Re: SAC Subcommittee on FAST
> 
> It is my understanding that FAST *does* use exact time periods.  
> That'swhy 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 
> exactcoverage 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
> >