Subjects

Overview

Subject authorities are useful tools for creating keywords for your digital collections. Authorities create consistent terminology that allow for stable search/item retrieval, clear definitions for concepts, and classification of subjects within a domain. For instance, the Getty Vocabularies help to define terms for art and material culture, taking contributions from museums and researchers. These terms create a shared vocabulary that is repeated across many institutions' search systems, creating consistent search.

The following guide provides an introduction to common authorities used, how to apply them to collections records, and alternative resources when major authorities do not have adequate terms. If you have more questions about the content or this guide, please contact Devon Murphy at devon.murphy@austin.utexas.edu

Anatomy of a subject term

Example

For this term, we see the preferred version at the top and the accepted variant forms of the term at the bottom. The preferred term is used first when describing an object, but variants can be used in lieu based on the context. This term is a "compound subject" because it combines several terms into one: we can see those pieces in the "Components" section. Library of Congress syntax puts together those compound subjects using dashes. 

Clicking on any of these images will take you to the complete record in the Library of Congress Subject Headings Authority.

How to Use Them

Subject terms are used to describe what a collections item is about (the "aboutness.") To choose subject terms, first review the collections item.

Consider:

• What are the most common themes in the item?

• Are there specific historical or cultural events in the item?

• Are there themes, concepts, or groups in the item that have historically been marginalized? 

• How are these themes, concepts, or groups described currently in their community or area of scholarship?

When choosing subject terms, consider:

• Adding terms that describe the most common and/or important themes.

• Being specific and concise with term choice. Avoid general terms like "History" or narrow terms like "Urban planning--Texas–Corpus Christi."

• Consider breaking compound geographic terms apart.

• Highlighting histories that have been systematically marginalized (ex. contributions of women in the Chicano Movement, LGBTQ+ histories)

• Using terms that are used by scholars and/or by members of that community. See the alternative thesauri/resources below for more information.

• Using terminology/phrasing different than that used in the rest of the metadata record. 

• Adding only 1-5 terms to lessen visual load on the user.

• Using the preferred term first, unless it is inappropriate for the context (ex. a variant term has the most updated form.) 

Where to Find Them

The following list contains a set of the most common thesauri and controlled subject vocabularies, as well as a few that are used for specific material culture contexts. Best practice is to find terms in these larger resources first before looking for an alternative or creating one's own term.

Alternative Thesauri/Resources

If you can't find the term you need in the thesauri and controlled vocabularies above, or if the terms listed are not appropriate (outdated, not reflective of current scholarship, etc.), consider using some of the resources below. You can also create your own term (guide forthcoming.)

For more supporting information, see the “Harmful Language and Content” tab. You can also explore collaborative efforts by UT staff at the Metadata-Centric Meet Up page.

Using Subjects in UT Sites

Table of Contents

Works Cited

Harpring, Patricia. 2010. Introduction to Controlled Vocabularies: Terminology for Art, Architecture, and Other Cultural Works. Edited by Murtha Baca. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Trust. 

Hjørland, Birger, and Claudio Gnoli. 2016. “ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization.” Subject (of Documents). ISKO. 2016. 

IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR). 2013. Functional Requirements for Authority Data: A Conceptual Model. Berlin/Munich:  De Gruyter Saur. 

Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress. 2016. “Library of Congress Subject Headings: Module 1.4.” Library of Congress. 2016.