ABSTRACT
Critics of the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) model have argued that the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group failed to make explicit the ontological assumptions underlying the model, and/or failed to make explicit the reasoning behind the choices that were made among competing conceptions. In this article, the philosophical assumptions underlying the design of the FRSAD model are identified and precisely described; the full range of alternatives are discussed and evaluated; and the implications of the Working Group’s choices among those alternatives are clarified.
