Thank you, Yang.  That is a very timely question.

Catalogers should not code a heading as $2 fast unless the term has an fst authority record (with the exception of chronological headings in 648 in some cases).  Putting a heading into a bibliographic record and coding it as FAST will not cause it to be added to the vocabulary.  If it does not have an authority record (and corresponding RDF record), it is not part of the FAST vocabulary.  One tool for identifying a FAST term is the SearchFast application,<>.

With very rare exceptions, all FAST terms are derived from LCSH and LCNAF terms in a largely automated process.  This vastly reduces the labor necessary to maintain a vocabulary.  Unfortunately, this does mean that if there is no LCSH or LCNAF term for a concept, there is no FAST term for that concept.  To get the term into FAST, it would first have to get into LCSH or LCNAF.

The FAST Policy and Outreach Committee (FPOC) recognizes that, as FAST comes into greater use, catalogers will find situations like this where a desired term is not available in FAST.  The need to first get the term into LCSH or LCNAF poses a significant barrier for many people.  FPOC has been considering how to improve the situation.

FPOC has been evaluating the possibility of creating a FAST Funnel for SACO.  This funnel would provide an easier way for catalogers who use FAST to get new terms into LCSH, which would then produce new terms in FAST.  At the most recent meeting, FPOC decided to pursue this option.  The committee is still determining how such a funnel would work and what would go into a formal proposal.  If we proceed to a formal proposal, information about the FAST Funnel will be posted widely.  A potential SACO funnel is an appropriate topic for this mailing list, so feel free to share any thoughts about it here.

The FAST Policy and Outreach Committee is also interested in hearing other suggestions for improving FAST, including how to best meet the need for new terms in the vocabulary.  If you have a suggestion or question regarding FAST, feel free to pass it on to me.  You can also join the FACETVOC-L mailing list and post questions and suggestions there.  The mailing list is very quiet, and FPOC would welcome fresh participation.  You can sign up for FACETVOC-L at<>.

                                                                                Steve McDonald
                                                                                FAST Policy and Outreach Committee
                                                                                [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] FAST headings not in FAST

We know that some libraries have switched to using FAST headings exclusively. I have been asked by a colleague regarding how to validate a term that is currently in use but without a ‡0 (OCoLC)fst[number]. Say, if a term is not in “FAST Lined Data,” what then?

Do FAST catalogers still have to establish “new” terms in NACO and SACO environment first?

Here is an example. “Garbanzo family” is used in this bib record [(OCoLC)on1096427252], could we expect that the term will be established in NAF or LCSH? And then it will work itself back into FAST via automation? Who is supposed to take the initiative to do so? Whoever wants to use 600 30 instead of or in addition to the current 600 37 in the bib?