Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. López Guillamón, I.: Evolución reciente de la catalogación (2004) 0.02
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = product of:
          0.08570373 = sum of:
            0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08570373 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  2. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.02
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = product of:
          0.06156408 = sum of:
            0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06156408 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.01
    0.013059714 = product of:
      0.026119428 = sum of:
        0.026119428 = product of:
          0.052238856 = sum of:
            0.052238856 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052238856 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  4. Danowski, P.; Heller, L.: Bibliothek 2.0 : Die Zukunft der Bibliothek? (2006) 0.01
    0.012625352 = product of:
      0.025250703 = sum of:
        0.025250703 = product of:
          0.050501406 = sum of:
            0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050501406 = score(doc=68,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Der Begriff Bibliothek 2.0 (bzw. Library 2.0) lehnt sich an die Begrifflichkeit des Web 2.0 an. Beide Begriffe sind für die bibliothekarische Welt relativ neu und werden bisher hauptsächlich im angloamerikanischen Raum diskutiert. Einige Bereiche des "neuen" Webs werden auch in Deutschland von Bibliothekaren diskutiert, so beispielsweise Weblogs und die Wikipedia. Die Betrachtung sollte hier jedoch nicht enden, sondern vielmehr als Startpunkt dienen. Über den Begriff als solchen kann man sicherlich streiten, jedoch hat er sich als tauglich erwiesen, um bestimmte Veränderungen zu beschreiben. So schreibt Michael Stephens, der den Begriff entscheidend mitprägte, im ALA TechSource Weblog: "I am so pleased with the discussion - and no matter what name you use, I love that the innovations and plans just keep rolling on."
  5. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  8. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  9. Erdei, K.: Kein Umzug für Zettel : Die digitalisierten Kataloge im Neubau der UB Kiel (2001) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    28. 4.2001 16:49:22
  10. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  11. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Rijk Spanhoff, E. de: Principle issues : catalog paradigms, old and new (2002) 0.01
    0.010712966 = product of:
      0.021425933 = sum of:
        0.021425933 = product of:
          0.042851865 = sum of:
            0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042851865 = score(doc=5481,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part I
  13. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.01
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = product of:
          0.036938448 = sum of:
            0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036938448 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
  14. Neubauer, W.: Von Bibliothekskatalogen zu Wissensportalen (2006) 0.01
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = product of:
          0.036938448 = sum of:
            0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036938448 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:40:17
  15. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.01
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = product of:
          0.036938448 = sum of:
            0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036938448 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Smiraglia, R.P.: Rethinking what we catalog : documents as cultural artifacts (2008) 0.01
    0.008927471 = product of:
      0.017854942 = sum of:
        0.017854942 = product of:
          0.035709884 = sum of:
            0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035709884 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.
  17. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.01
    0.00769551 = product of:
      0.01539102 = sum of:
        0.01539102 = product of:
          0.03078204 = sum of:
            0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03078204 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Behrens-Neumann, R.: Aus der 55. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 5. und 6. November 2008 in Frankfurt am Main (2009) 0.01
    0.00769551 = product of:
      0.01539102 = sum of:
        0.01539102 = product of:
          0.03078204 = sum of:
            0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03078204 = score(doc=2778,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2009 19:35:56
  19. Hollender, U.: Heiliger Joseph! : Zu einem Kardinalschreibfehler in deutschen Bibliothekskatalogen (falscher *Guiseppe statt richtigem Giuseppe) (2002) 0.01
    0.0071419775 = product of:
      0.014283955 = sum of:
        0.014283955 = product of:
          0.02856791 = sum of:
            0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02856791 = score(doc=536,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In schätzungsweise jedem vierten deutschen Zeitungsartikel und InternetDokument, in dem der italienische Vorname Giuseppe enthalten ist, taucht der Fehler auf, sei nun die Rede von Verdi, Arcimboldo oder Garibaldi: Giuseppe wird falsch geschrieben, nämlich als *Guiseppe, als handele sich um eine Variante von Guido, was dem deutschen Auge offensichtlich vertrauter ist. Bemerkenswert ist, dass die Buchstaben "i" und "u° auf der Tastatur direkt nebeneinander liegen, was der Tippfehleranfälligkeit Vorschub leistet. Lässt man die Internet-Suchmaschine Google "Seiten auf deutsch" absuchen, findet sie 61.500 Giuseppes und 15.200 *Guiseppes (über 25%). Google ist übrigens seit neuestem so "intelligent', bei der falschen Eingabe zu fragen: "Meinten Sie Giuseppe?'. Schränkt man die Suchmaschine auf italienisch-sprachige Seiten ein, sinkt der Anteil der falschen Schreibweise auf 0,54 % (426.000 richtige gegen 2.330 falsche). Bei genauerem Hinsehen tauchen die meisten der Falschschreibungen bei offenbar amerikanischen dot-com-Seiten auf, die italienische Genealogien aufschlüsseln. Die genuin aus Italien stammenden Seiten weisen nur in den allerwenigsten Fällen den Fehler auf. Dieses Phänomen fiel mir als Romanistin zunächst auf, dann störte es mich, später belustigte es mich beinahe und schließlich wurde die Suche danach fast zum Spiel. Unter bibliothekarischen Gesichtspunkten ist der Fehler ein Ärgernis, hat sich doch diese falsche Schreibweise massenhaft in bibliothekarische Datenbanken eingeschlichen. Als ich schon vor Jahren eine Düsseldorfer Diplombibliothekarin darauf ansprach, widersprach diese und behauptete, es gebe sehr wohl den Namen in der Schreibweise *Guiseppe neben der - vielleicht üblicheren - Form Giuseppe. Und tatsächlich findet sich die falsche Form in manchen Vornamenbüchern - so oft schon wurde der Fehler tradiert, dass er jetzt schon legitimiert erscheint. Schlägt man hingegen in italienischen Vornamenbüchern nach, zeigt sich, dass man hier vergeblich nach *Guiseppe suchen muss.
  20. Markey, K.: ¬The online library catalog : paradise lost and paradise regained? (2007) 0.01
    0.0062492304 = product of:
      0.012498461 = sum of:
        0.012498461 = product of:
          0.024996921 = sum of:
            0.024996921 = weight(_text_:i in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024996921 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.14585242 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.