Fwd: RE: [SAC-FAST] Fwd: Date ranges in FAST for geological periods?

[qiangjin at uiuc.edu]

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:39:02 -0600
>From: "Shannon Hoffman" <shannon_hoffman at byu.edu>  
>Subject: RE: [SAC-FAST] Fwd: Date ranges in FAST for 
geological periods?  
>To: <qiangjin at uiuc.edu>
>
>   I feel that it would be better to use the Jurassic
>   period, etc. not 190000000-140000000 B.C." However
>   when you look at the manual it does not have this as
>   the way these periods should be listed.
>
>    
>
>   Here is a copy of how the manual reads.
>
>    
>
>    
>
>    
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: sac-fast-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
>   [mailto:sac-fast-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf
>   Of qiangjin at uiuc.edu
>   Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:15 AM
>   To: sac-fast at mailman.yale.edu
>   Subject: [SAC-FAST] Fwd: Date ranges in FAST for
>   geological periods?
>
>    
>
>   ---- Original message ----
>
>   >Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:03:13 -0400
>
>   >From: "Lynn M El Hoshy" <lelh at loc.gov> 
>
>   >Subject: Fwd: Date ranges in FAST for geological
>   periods? 
>
>   >To: <qiangjin at uiuc.edu>
>
>   > 
>
>   >Qiang,
>
>   >     Members of the FAST Subcommittee might be
>   interested in
>
>   seeing this Autocat posting if they haven't
>   already.  Lynn
>
>   >________________
>
>   >Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:50:26 -0500
>
>   >From: Daniel Belich <dbelich at oeb.harvard.edu> 
>
>   >Subject: Date ranges in FAST for geological
>   periods? 
>
>   >To: AUTOCAT at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
>
>   > 
>
>   >Is there anyone else out there who's troubled by
>   the proposed
>
>   >chronological headings in FAST regarding
>   pre-historical
>
>   time? I quote this
>
>   >from the latest issue of TechKNOW:
>
>   > 
>
>   >Period
>
>   >Following the recommendations of the ALCTS/ SAC
>
>   Subcommittee, and those
>
>   >recommendations made at the Airlie Conference,
>   period
>
>   headings in FAST
>
>   >reflect the actual time period of coverage for a
>   specific
>
>   resource.
>
>   >Therefore, FAST chronological headings are
>   expressed as
>
>   either a single
>
>   >numerical date or a numerical date range. For
>   example, the
>
>   LCSH heading
>
>   >"20th century" is expressed in FAST as "1900-1999."
>   A
>
>   prehistory period
>
>   >such as the Jurassic period is expressed as
>   "190000000-
>
>   140000000 B.C."
>
>   > 
>
>   >I don't see how expressing the Jurassic period that
>   way
>
>   simplifies it.
>
>   >Someone dropped the ball on this because unlike the
>   Western,
>
>   >biblically-based way of maintaining chronology
>   (BC-AD),
>
>   geological time
>
>   >scale terms are internationally accepted and not
>   culturally-
>
>   biased (so
>
>   >long as one accepts the scientific view of the
>   Earths
>
>   development). In
>
>   >fact, the date range in FAST is inaccurate and
>   arbitrary. I
>
>   have a chart
>
>   >on my desk published by the International
>   Commission on
>
>   Stratigraphy
>
>   >giving the Jurassic era as between 199.6 millions
>   of years
>
>   ago (ma) and
>
>   >145.5 ma. Will the internationally- accepted
>   terminology of
>
>   geological and
>
>   >paleontological time periods
>   (era-period-epoch-stage) have
>
>   to be used as
>
>   >topical terms in FAST instead?
>
>   > 
>
>   >dbelich at oeb.harvard.edu
>
>   >Dan Belich
>
>   >Ernst Mayr Library, MCZ
>
>   >Harvard University
>
>   >26 Oxford St.
>
>   >Cambridge, MA. 02138
>
>   >(617)495-3946
>
>   _______________________________________________
>
>   SAC-FAST mailing list
>
>   SAC-FAST at mailman.yale.edu
>
>   http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-fast