Applying CONA to FRSAD for Organizing Cultural Works Information

예술분야 정보의 주제전거를 위한 CONA와 FRSAD의 연계방안 연구

  • 박지영 (한성대학교 지식정보학부)
  • Received : 2012.06.12
  • Accepted : 2012.06.20
  • Published : 2012.06.30


This paper provides suggestions for analyzing Cultural Objects Name Authority(CONA) developed by the Getty Trust and applying CONA to Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data(FRSAD). CONA is linked with the other Getty controlled vocabularies such as AAT, ULAN, and TGN, and can be linked with the library controlled vocabularies, such as LCSH. However, CONA has differences with library models since CONA is based on the art museum or art gallery. Therefore, we need to consider it when we link CONA to library standard models. The results discussed in this study have implications for analyzing CONA which provides access for cultural objects and applying it to the FRSAD, the subject authority model in library fields.


Cultural Objects;Subject Authority;Controlled Vocabulary;Art Works;Cultural Objects Name Authority(CONA);Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data(FRSAD)


Supported by : 한성대학교


  1. 박지영. 2011. 서지레코드의 주제전거를 위한 FRSAD 모형 연구. 정보관리연구, 42(1): 113-135.
  2. 유네스코와 유산. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  3. 이소연. 2012. "Cultural objects and cultural art." [online]. [cited 2012.5.31].
  4. 이혜원. 2012. 온톨로지 구조로 표현된 FRSAD 모형에 관한 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 23(1): 5-26.
  5. 조윤희. 2003. 문화콘텐츠 통합을 위한 메타데이터 포맷 연구. 정보관리학회지, 20(2): 113-134
  6. 조윤희. 2004. 문화콘텐츠 통합을 위한 메타데이터 포맷 연구(II): 도서관, 박물관, 미술관 사례를 중심으로. 한국문헌정보학회지, 38(3): 201-219.
  7. About the AAT. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  8. About the CONA. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  9. About the TGN. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  10. About the ULAN. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  11. Bountouri, Lina and Manolis Gergatsoulis. 2011. "The Semantic Mapping of Archival Metadata to the CIDOC CRM Ontology." Journal of Archival Organization, 9(3/4): 174-207.
  12. Clarke, Rachel. 2010. Cataloguing and classification for art and design school libraries: challenges and considerations. In: The Handbook of Art and Design Librarianship. Edited by Amanda Glubizzi and Paul Glassman. UK: Facet publishing.
  13. Harpring, P. 2010. "Development of the Getty Vocabularies: AAT, TGN, ULAN, and CONA." Art Documentation: bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 29(1): 67-72.
  14. Harpring, P. 2011a. The Getty Vocabularies: Status & Multilinguality. In: Multilingual Vocabulary Group Meeting Getty Research Institute. Feb. 2011. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  15. Harpring, P. 2011b. Subject Access to Art Works: Issues and the CONA Example. [online]. [cited 2012.6.8]. .
  16. Hyvonen, Eero. 2009. Semantic Portals for Cultural Heritage. In: Handbook on Ontologies 2nd Edition. (Steffen Staab and Rudi Studer eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1-23. .
  17. IFLA Working Group on FRSAR. 2011. Marcia Zeng, Maja Zumer and Athena Salaba. Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data(FRSAD). Berlin ; New York, NY: De Gruyter.
  18. Kakali, Constantia, Irene Lourdi, Thomais Stasinopoulou, Lina Bountouri, Christos Papatheodorou, Martin Doerr, and Manolis Gergatsoulis. 2007. Integrating Dublin Core metadata for cultural heritage collections using ontologies. In: Proceedings International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2007, August 27-31, Singapore, 2007, 128-139.
  19. Metadata Standard Crosswalk. [online]. [cited 2012.6.18]. .
  20. Shreeves, Sarah L., Joanne S. Kaczmarek, and Timothy W. Cole. 2003. "Harvesting cultural heritage metadata using the OAI Protocol." Library Hi Tech, 21(2): 159-169.
  21. Zeng, Marcia Lei and Maja Zumer. 2010. "Introducing FRSAD and Mapping It with SKOS and Other Models." International Cataloging & Bibliographic Control, 39(3): 53-56.