This is a more important topic than it may appear. The way I look at it, the term OPAC never meant anything to non-librarians anyway, and should never have been used in the first place.
In the pre-search engine world, "catalog" used to mean something rather specific, but even then there was less understanding among non-librarians. You had the library catalog which was very uninteresting, but there were also the catalogs from Victoria's Secret, which were much more interesting. And then there was the general "catalog of complaints" type of lists.
If the library catalog is to continue, we must differentiate it from the search engines, and it should have a name that more accurately relays its function and purpose. The main thing that a catalog allows over search engines is that users can search concepts and not just text. So, a user can search WWI and get (theoretically) everything in the collection about the great war that engulfed the world between the years 1914 to 1918. Of course the authority files, the necessary cross-references, and the entire subdivision structure need to be far better incorporated and utilized than they are now. (That is another issue) But this is what separates a library catalog from a search engine. The description function of the catalog is much more important to librarians than to users.
So, a name for the library catalog should probably include the term "concept," such as "Conceptual search engine" or perhaps even more accurately "English Concept Search" "German Concept Search" "French, ...". Maybe a fun acronym could be found or something. But I think it is increasingly important to distinguish the catalog and its functions from a search engine because people simply do not understand.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Mon Aug 20 2007 - 02:15:24 EDT