History of cataloguing code

OBJECTIVE-
Cataloguing, precisely stated, is the process of preparing descriptive records for the documents
contained in a library collection. The purpose is to facilitate, communication and retrieval of
information (bibliographic data or facts) about the documents. The process, as we know, applies a
general system that is international in nature and scope. It is, thus, a standard practice based on
rulesempiricallydeveloped,i.e.,throughpractice andreasoning.Inthe earlystages,cataloguingwas
a local and individuallibrarypractice.Itlackedasystem.Itdevelopedintoa logical system by stages
fromits primitive beginnings.Howthisdevelopmentoccurred?Whatvicissitudesdidit pass through
to reach the presentstage of perfection?Whatfactors,ideasandprofessional effortscontributed to
the growth.
INTRODUCTION-
A librarycatalogue code, one or two of which (for, there are a score of the them), as you may have
surely become familiar with to some extent, can be explained as a `set of rules' for guidance of
cataloguers in the preparation of descriptive bibliographical records (i.e., entries in library
catalogues, bibliographies and. similar other lists) for books and other graphic materials so as to
ensure consistency and uniformity in their treatment. The code may additionally have rules for
subject cataloguing/indexing and filing of entries as well. Generally, codes comprise rules for
description of materials (books, etc.) and choice of headings and their forms needed in making
author, title, etc. bibliographical entries including cross references as may be warranted. This is-
normally so with codes designed for author-title alphabetical catalogues in which subject entries
with appropriate cross references serving as syndetic devices are also filed as in the dictionary
catalogue.AACR2, 1988 rev,the latestof the Anglo-Americanfamily of catalogue codes is one such
example.Subjectcataloguing/indexingcallsfor a different skill and requires additionally the use of
separate aids such as a list of subject headings (e.g., Sears List of Subject Headings) or a scheme of
classification(e.g.,DeweyDecimal Classification,ColonClassification,etc.).Similarly,filing of entries
in the catalogue also needs a separate set of rules, as for example, ALA Rules for Filing Catalogue
Cards, Library of Congress Filing Rules, etc. Assigning call numbers to documents to facilitate
shelving/storing and thus, to ensure physical control of documents, further requires the use of a
classification scheme and any author or chronological tables as well (e.g., Cutter Author Marks,
Biscoe Time Numbers, etc). The comprehensive codes such as Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary
Catalogue, Ranganathan's Classified Catalogue Code do not support the total cataloging process.
Some classification schemes and any author/chronological table have to be employed as adjuncts.
This Unit is about the `history' and `development' of `library catalogue codes' (which have greatly
proliferatedoverthe time).Whatdothese terms,viz., history and development mean ? Obviously,
thisisan importantquestionto,whichwe have toinitiallyturnandseekanswerso as to understand
the theme and scope of the Unit
EVOLUTION OF CATALOGUE-
The custodial responsibility conservation assumed by the libraries of the early stages obligated on
themthe functionsof acquisitionandentailingalsothe use of some system of bibliographic control
so that the items on the store could be located and retrieved.
Early Stage (250 13:C. - 800 A.D.)

Some such methods though primitive, existed almost until the time the manuscripts came to end
and ceased to be the primary vehicles of communication. The discovery of Assyro-Babylonian clay
tablets, the wall inscriptions at Edfu and the extant remnants of the papyrus rolls of the Egyptian,
Greek and Roman civilizations testify this fact. The catalogues and the materials they listed, both
were inprimal forms (clay tablets, inscriptions and papyrus rolls). From the archaeological finds of
the Assyro-Babylonian clay tablets (1668-626 B.C.), the antiquity of the library catalogue can be
easily placed around 2000 B.C. These tablets were similar to press guides with bibliographic data,
such as title (occasionally, with opening words), number of tablets constituting a work, number of
linesona tablet,distinctsubdivisions and location marks inscribed on them. They served as simple
location devices. However, all such primal forms were not verily catalogues. This system with no
change continued to exist well into the first seven centuries of the Christian era. The fall of the
Roman empire in the 6th century brought about a deliberate destruction and dispersal of the
hithertogreatcollectionsof the private,public and temple libraries. The emergence of Christianity
as the state religioninthe 3rdcenturyhavingalreadydealtasevere blow,the temple librariesbegan
to disintegrate. Their place was now taken by the monastic libraries. As the major instruments of
education in the middle ages (300 AD - 1100 AD) monasteries served the cause by collecting,
producing and preserving the books useful in the learning by the clerics. The famous work,
institutions of Cassiodorus (6th Century) was intended to serve as a scholarly model with an
annotated guide to what was valuable reading of the times. The need of catalogue was not felt.
Efforts were made later in compiling inventories. A list of books given by Gregory the Great in the
8th century AD to the church of St. Clements (Rome) wasthe earliest of the monastic library
catalogues.Itwasa marble tablet with an introduction or prayer and a few biblical works inscribed
on it. The catalogue of the monastic library of York composed by Alcuin in verse, which could be
eitheralist of famous authors or a bibliography was the next. A third example is De Trinitate of St.
Augustine, which too was a simple list of works transcribed on the flyleaf of a work.
Age of Inventory (1200 A.D. -1500 A.D.)
Such simple listswereattemptedingoodnumbersinthe succeeding periods (900 A.D. - 1100 A.D.).
Louis Pious (814-840 A.D.) issued a decree requiring the monasteries and cathedrals to 21 History
and Developmentof LibraryCatalogue Codeslistall the booksintheirpossession. So the catalogues
of the monasteriesandcathedralswerecompiled to serve the need for inventories of the material
possession. Books were arranged not by author but by the importance of the work in the order of
Bible,otherreligiousworksandsecularworks.Contentswere notindicatedinthe case of collections
(worksof the same author and worksof variousauthorson the same subjecthoundtogether,aswas
the practice). The old traditions of the pre-Christian era continued.
Age of Finding List (1600 A.D. - 1800 A.D.)
Althoughthe inventory idea persisted, many catalogues of the 16th century such as the Catalogue
of St. Martin's Priory of Dover, the Syon Catalogue, the Catalogue of the Bretton Monastery, etc.
contained many additional details such as content notes, names of editors, translators, etc. in the
entry and provided with author and other indexes. The 16th century proved a further productive
period influenced by great bibliographers like Gesner, Treflerus, Maunsell, to mention a y ew. Of
particular significance was the contribution made by Andrew Maunsell, a bookseller and a
bibliographer in his own right, who published a bibliography of books in English. He adopted

dictionaryarrangementmakingentriesunderthe surnamesof authors with added entries provided
undereditors,subjectwords,etc.inalimitedway.Throughhisprocedure the conceptof main entry
(to be distinguished from the added entries as the one made under author with full bibliographic
description) emerged. The idea of uniform heading also owes to him. He entered the Bible and
books of the Bible under the uniform heading of Bible. By the close of the century, although the
vestigesof the inventorycatalogue still existed,the needfor uniformity and systematic approach to
catalogue wasclearlyrecognised.Full descriptionbecame evident. Author entry gained importance
as the primary entry providing the basic approach. Added entries were sought for additional
approaches. Printed catalogue became the fashion. Efforts at standardization received new
inspirationfrommenlike Naude,Dury,Brilletandothers.The Bodleian catalogues produced during
the century marked a milestone and greatly influenced the succeeding studies of cataloguing
practice. Initially intended as shelf guides on single printed pages with supplements to follow, a
catalogue (in book form) of printed books and manuscripts of the Bodleian library (in the typical
mannerof the 16th centuryshelf list) was printed in 1605. Thomas Bodley and Thomas James were
the principal menbehindit.The lastof the Bodleiancatalogue issuedunderthe guidance of Thomas
Hyde in 1674 marked further improvement. It continued the alphabetical order and other
proceduresasinthe earliercataloguesbutprovidedbetterassemblage of literaryunits. The preface
containedruleswhichremainedauthoritative untilthe middle of the 19th century. The next century
i.e., 18th century was rather a period of stabilisation than innovation or solution. Libraries, more
importantly the university and private collections grew in size without definite improvements in
organisation.The spreadof ideaswasslow.Onlythe printedcataloguesdidserve the purpose but in
a limitedway;asexamples.Butmostof themwere influencedbythe earlybibliographers who were
immature and were not concerned with logic or theory.
Modern Catalogue (1900 A.D.)
The 19th centurywasan age of great manycodes: Catalogue was considered a finding list with the
Bodleianconceptof literaryunitoccasionallygivenexpressionincompilations.There ensueda spate
of debates on the relative merits of author, dictionary, classed and alphabetioclassed catalogues.
Author (under surname) and title (for anonymous work) entries constituted the author catalogue.
From this author catalogue did develop the dictionary catalogue. It consisted of duplicate entries
under authors, titles, subjects and forms. For example, the catalogue of the printed hooks of the
Societyof Antiquaries of London (1816), supposed as the first true dictionary catalogue, employed
duplicate entry approach in one single alphabetical file. Classed catalogue was limited to subject
arrangement in systematic order by grouping related subjects together or in proximity. As the
purpose of the catalogue became better clarified, the classed catalogue gained importance. It
applied the systems of classification schemes devised by Bacon, Horne, Brunet and others. The
alphabetico-classedcataloguetoobecame popularduringthe middle of the century.Itwasrather an
amalgamof dictionaryandclassedcatalogue.The firsthalf of the centurywas,thus,characterised by
a varietyof combinations of arrangements and indexes, broadly divisible into two' categories. The
firstcategory constitutedlists arranged in subject or classed order, i.e., broad subjects or classes in
shelf listorderwithworks subarranged according to accession and chronologically by imprint date,
title or author. The second category consisted of alphabetically arranged indexes to classified file
whichwasnot a systematicone.The supplementaryalphabetical subject indexes created the need
for standardlistsof subjectheadingsasaids.Since the practice of pickingup subject words from the
title lacked uniformity and made syndetic structure difficult, adoption of a better system specially

neededforconstructionof dictionarycatalogue wasfelt. Thisinitiatedeffortstowardsdevelopment
of standardlistsof subjectheading. The ALA published such a list entitled, List of Subject Headings
for use inthe dictionary catalogue in 1895. It was considered as a standard list suitable for all types
of libraries and found wide acceptance. The third and final edition was brought in 1911 when the
Library of Congress List of Subject Headings (issued in 3 parts between 1909 and 1913) replaced it.
Besides these two, three other publications viz., Poole's Index to Periodicals Literature, the ALA
Index (anindex forcollectionsandcompositeworks),andthe Catalogue of the ALA Library(intended
to serve asselectiontool,cataloguingguide andprintedcatalogue),all published in 1893 (which still
continue underdifferentnamesandpublishers)provedasuseful bibliographical toolsandinfluenced
cataloguing. However, the idea of specific subject entry was still in the process of making with
insistence onthe use of standardtermsintitlestoindicate the subjects.The introduction of printed
catalogue card service in 1901 by the Library of Congress was yet another development
HISTORY OF CATALOGUE CODES-
The 19th century marks the beginning of code making. Since it is not easy to make a complete
survey,we will introduce youtoa selectnumberof codesthatbelong to the Anglo-American family
of codes. Additionally, we will also examine three other codes, viz., a German Code (Prussian
Instructions), an Italian code (Vatican Rules) and Ranganathan's Classified Catalogue Code. 2.3.1
British Museum Cataloguing Rules British Museum, Department of Printed Books. Rules for
compilingbooks,mapsandmusicinthe BritishMuseum. - Rev. ed. - London: British Museum, 1936.
printed by order of the Trustees. In 1757, the Royal Library (merged earlier in 1753 with Cottonian,
Harleian and Sloan Collections) was transferred to the British Museum. The library's total stock of
books at this time touched 5,00,000 mark. Since the previously compiled catalogues of the British
Museum(Librorum Impressorum qui in Museo Britanico Ad servantur Catalogus, compiled by P.M.
Many, S. Harperand S. Ayserough,publishedin1787) and the othercollectionswerepoorlyplanned
and notwell executedlists,the trusteeswantedtohave a freshalphabetical catalogue alongwithan
additional general classedcataloguecompiled.Accordingly, between 1813 and 1819 seven volumes
of alphabetical catalogue (updation of 1787 Librorum) were issued. Sir Henry H. Baber was the
keeperof printedbooksatthistime. The general classedcataloguehadtobe plannedandexecuted.
ThomasH. Horne made a convincing presentation of a scientific classification in his Outline for the
Classification of the Library (submitted to the trustees in 1825). He was therefore engaged, for a
time, to accomplish the task. The project, however, failed and it was suspended in 1834. But his
ideasonclassificationandrulesforbibliographic description, especially, as they related to content
notes,formsof authors' namesandindexesforclassifiedcatalogue proved valuable addition to the
literature on cataloguing. Baber, as the keeper proposed a general alphabetical author catalogue
and suggestedthatPanizzi be entrusted with the task of editing-it. He formulated sixteen rules for
guidance and suggested the use of uniform slips for entries so that their arrangement and
preparation of the manuscript for printing would prove easy. Baber's rules required entry under
author if it appeared either on the title page or elsewhere within the book, the form of the name
taken on the same basis. Anonymous works were to be entered under the prominent or the first
word (not an article or preposition) of the title with possible author's name added after the title
within brackets. Pseudonymous works, similarly required entry under the pseudonym with real
name addedat the endof the title withinbrackets.Collectionswere tobe entered under editor and
translations under original author. The current emphasis on scientific classification with Home's
advocacy of classified catalogue on one hand, and the adherence to the tradition with Baber's

insistence on alphabetical catalogue supported also by Panizzi on the other, ensued a spate of
debatesandarguments,of course,withnodecisive results. Baber's proposal for a new alphabetical
catalogue was finally approved by the trustees in 1838 with the stipulation that it should be
completedby1840 and,insteadinthe shelf byshelf order(aswasoriginallysuggested by Baber and
Panizzi),the catalogue wastobe completely alphabetized and issued in separate volumes for each
letter of the alphabet. Panizzi was directed to write the rules for its compilation. Thus, came the
famed British Museum Cataloguing Rules known also as Panizzi's 91 Rules. In fact, Panizzi did not
author the rulesall alone andentirelybyhimself.The code wasthe result of collaboration involving
the concerted efforts of Edward Edwards, J.W. Jones, J.H. Parry and Thomas Watts besides Sir
AnthonyPanizzi.Eachone firstcompiledacode individuallywhichwere thencollectivelystudiedand
criticisedtoformulate rules by consensus so as to reflect the best in the cataloguing philosophy of
the time. Initially 79 rules were formulated which were expanded to 91 rules in the final code
published in 1841. These rules, clearly, were written to provide for the catalogue of one larger
library,the BritishMuseum.Theywere notintendedtohe of general use,i.e., use in other libraries.
Because boththe compilation of the catalogue and the formulation of the rules proceeded side by
side, the first volume of the catalogue issued in 1841 proved unsatisfactory, marred by many
omissions.Obviously, the rules were applied partially. ,A rash of criticisms and enquiries followed
requiring Panizzi to defend the rules. He questioned the feasibility of the project of a printed
catalogue for such a large library as the British Museum Library. His testimony before the
commissionspresentinghis•viewswas considered to constitute not only an excellent notes to the
rulesbutalso a remarkable introduction to the foundations of cataloguing. The testimony covered
many topics of recurring interest, such as, optimal level of bibliographical description and the
relationof descriptiontothe objectives and functions of library catalogue; normalisation of names
of personsandcorporate bodies;problemsof transliteration,title page transcription, etc.; entry for
different forms of publications; treatment of modifications, adaptations, etc. of original works,
anonymouspublications,etc.;consistencyanduniformityinapplication of cataloguing rules; nature
of cross references; filing and arrangement of entries, and so on. It is perhaps for this reason that
Panizzi's name came to be identified rather singly with the formulation of the rules. The job was
entrusted to him and he led the team. The printing of the catalogue was given up with the first
volume. However, the manuscript project continued. In 1849, a guard book catalogue with entries
copied on slips mounted on to the pages of large registers was devised which resulted in a 150
volume catalogue in 1851. Panizzi contended that author catalogue served the users the best,
because, according to him most users preferred author approach as the basic approach. The rules
therefore,providedforauthorcatalogue withan index of matter (alphabetical subject index based
on the subjectwordspicked up from titles) appended to it. The printed catalogue (in book format)
cannot admit(fullydescriptive) multiple entries lest it becomes impossibly bulky. As a measure of
check against the bulk, one entry per book was the answer. Panizzi assumed that this single entry
(underauthor) withsufficientdescriptionshould serve as the principal/main entry with references
(in lieu of added/additional entries) made to it.
To speakaboutthe meritsof the code,the British Museum Catalogue Rules continues the practices
found as far back as in the catalogues of the medieval monastic libraries, some of which are
reflected even in the present day practices as can be seen in AACR 2 and its 1988 revision. Among
these practices are punctuations of headings, addition of qualifying phrases to names of certain

classesof tidedpersons,recordingof sizes(thoughthe earlierdesignationswerequite different) and
more importantly the depth of description of a bibliographical item. The rules, particularly, those
which dealt with anonymous publications evidently meant that the catalogue should serve as
somethingmore thana findinglist.Forthisandmanyother reasons,itisconsideredas the founding
code,whichinfluencedthe'formulationof rulesinall the subsequentcodes.It became also the first
majorcode to prescribe corporate entries.The rulessoughtcorporate entryasdefaultor as a means
of organisingpublicationsof certainclasses.Corporate publicationswere consideredas forming part
of anonymous works. All anonymous works were sought to be separated into three groups:
`corporate',`form' and whatcould be called`miscellaneous'headingsgroups.Inthe firstgroup were
included publications of a) assemblies, hoards and other corporate bodies and, b) those of
academies,universities and similar organisations, the former arranged in alphabetical order under
the name of the countryor place ("from which they derive their denominations or for want of such
denominationsunderthe name of the place fromwhence theiractsare issued") andthe latterunder
the form heading `Academies', subarranged by continent and then country. The second group
covered special type of materials (where form was considered important) arranged under such
headings as `Periodical publications' (for reviews, magazines, newspapers, journals, gazettes,
annuals, etc. periodical publications), `ephemerides' (for almanacs, calendars, ephemeride, etc.) `
catalogues' (for anonymous catalogues, catalogues of public establishments and of private
collections,general andspecialcatalogues,dealers'catalogues,sale catalogues, etc.), `liturgies' (for
missals,brevaries,offices, horae, prayer books, liturgies, etc.) and, `Bible' (for OT and NT and their
parts).The third groupcomprisedof miscellaneouspublications(notcoveredbyrulesforpersonal or
corporate works or other categories) was arranged in order of preference as possible alternatives:
under person (if named in title), or place name (if referred to in title), substantive (if lacking both
personand place) and under first word (if not substantive in title). In conclusion it can he said that
the code was certainly a pioneering attempt although it lacked guiding principles to ensure
consistency as needed especially for any subsequent formulation and addition of new rules for
treating new types of materials which contingency was admittedly anticipated by Panizzi.
Jewett's Rules
Jewett, Charles Coffin. Smithsonian report on the construction of catalogues of libraries and their
publicationbymeansof separate stereotypedtitles,withrulesandexamples. - 2nd ed. - Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University Microfilms, 1961. - Reprint of the original 2nd ed. published Washington, D.C.:
SmithsonianInstitution,1853. A small pamphlet,thiswasfirstpublishedin 1852 under the title, The
SmithsonianReportonthe constructionof cataloguesof libraries,andtheirpublication by means of
stereo-titles contained a proposal and a plan of action envisioning a cooperative system of
cataloguing through the application of the technology of stereo-typed plates for producing and
printing of library catalogues. The second edition published in 1853 included 33 rules written by
Jewett.The SmithsonianInstitution(Washington)wasestablishedin1846 withthe bequestmade by
the English chemist, James Smithson. The objective was to promote the increase and diffusion of
knowledge among men." What should be the means to accomplish this objective became a
contentiousissue.CharlesCoffin Jewett, the librarian and assistant secretary of the institution felt
that the best means to accomplish the objective was to develop the Smithsonian into a national
librarywithlegal depositoryrightsincorporatingas well a union catalogue of the holdings of all the
public libraries in the United States which would eventually become a universal catalogue. His
impassioned and eloquent assertion, "how much this would promote the progress of knowledge

how much, by rebuking the rashness which rushes into authorship, ignorant of what others have
written,and adding to the mass of books without adding to the sum of knowledge" is reflective of
his strong conviction in his undertaking. Joseph Henry, a scientist, and the secretary, who was
Jewett'ssuperiorheldaltogetheradifferentview.He feltthatthe Smithsonianinstitutionserved the
cause betterby providingfinancial assistance to the scientists to carry out their research. This clash
of interests and views, "emblematic of the antagonism between the two cultures, Jewett
representingliterature andHenry,science reacheditsdenonementwithJewett'sdismissal from the
Smithsonian." Jewett's proposal envisioned a national system of centralised and cooperative
cataloguingapplyingthe thenavailable,technology of stereotyped plates. The advantages claimed
were economyinthe cataloguingcostsof individual librariessince printingandupdatingof the book
catalogues was highly expensive while they still remained less efficient. So it could be obviated if
each bibliographical record were stereotyped on a separate plate which would permit mass
productionof cataloguesata relativelyreducedcost.Furtherit was said that the system would also
ensure elimination of duplicate efforts, greater measure of uniformity, easy location of source for
the books, greater access to bibliographic information, possible exchange of materials among the
libraries,anAmericannational bibliography and a future universal bibliography. His plan called for
preparationandsubmission of entries by the individual libraries according to the rules (drafted by
Jewett), getting each single entry stereotyped and producing catalogues on demand by simply
interfilingthe new entries and printing. The process was inexpensive and so every library could as
well have the required version of the catalogue (i.e., either the classed or alphabetical catalogue)
compiled and printed. The use of stereotyped plates further would facilitate compilation of the
union catalogue. The Smithsonian Institution as the national library and central agency would
coordinate the entire programme.Besides maintaining the union catalogue it would also bring out
monthly bulletin, annual and quinquennial catalogues for the books received by it through copy
right. The idea was far ahead of the times and for want of wide support and for lack of proper
technological material means, the project however, did not succeed. According to Jewett, a library
catalogue wasa listof titlesof booksdesigned to show what the particular library contained. It was
generally not required to give any more information "than the author gives or ought to give in the
title page,andpublisher,inimprintorcolophon;exceptthe designationof the form which is almost
universally added. Persons who needed more information should seek for it in bibliographical
dictionaries, literary histories or similar works". This means that he was advocating minimum
description in catalogues based on the title page so that those who needed more bibliographical
details would find them in bibliographical reference sources. Like Panizzi, Jewett preferred
alphabetical catalogue. His rules were basically the same as those of Panizzi but for minor
modifications,He establishedthe conceptof corporate body more clearly and sought to place them
inone category by providing for entry under the name of the body instead of place name or other,
withcross referencesmade fromimportantsubstantive/adjectivetothe principal word in the name
of the body.To achieve uniformity,he wantedanonymousworkstobe enteredunder the first word
of the title (not an article) with cross-references made from sought terms. Pseudonymous works
required entry under pseudonyms followed by the word, pseudo. If the author had used his real
name in any edition, continuation or supplement, the pseudonym was not to be chosen for entry.
Insteadthe real name was to be preferred because the author's identity is no more concealed. For
Jewett,anode wasintendedtopromote uniformityincataloguingamongthe libraries.He therefore,
intendedhiscode tobe adoptedbyall libraries.Forthispurpose,he prescribed style, extended the
principle of corporate entry,preferredthe use of pseudonym(unlessthe real name alsoappeared in

the publications) and required entry under first word than the subject word of the title for
anonymousworks(because title subjectwordswere notuniformlystandardones). He established a
principle that could be called the principle of standardization by stating that "the rules for
cataloguingmustbe stringentandshouldmeetsofaras possible,all difficultiesof detail.Nothing,so
far can be avoidedshouldbe lefttothe individual taste orjudgmentof the cataloguer".He favoured
legalistic approach, i.e., and a rule to meet every cataloguing problem and appeared to have
preferredanenumerative code.Suffice tosaythatJewett'sruleslike othercodesof the time exerted
great influence on the future development of catalogues and catalogue codes.
Cutter's Rules
Cutter, Charles Ammi. Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue. –
4th ed., rewritten. - Washington D .C.: Government Printing Office, 1904. - Republished: London:
The Library Association, 1953.
The US Bureau of Education commissioned Cutter to write a status report on the public libraries in
the United States to commemorate the nation's centenary year. The report, Public libraries in the
UnitedStates,prepared,accordingly by Cutter, was published in 1876 along with his code entitled,
Rulesfora PrintedDictionaryCatalogwhichconstitutedthe secondpartof the report.Consideredas
a "landmark work," and described as an "epitome of the cataloguing art of the period," the rules
presented consistent summary of the ideas and works of most leading librarians of the time,
evincing particularly, the influence of Panizzi, Jewett, Perkins, Poole and many others. The first
edition(1Fcontained205 ruleswhichwastestedbyapplyingtothe BostonAthanaeumandthe rules
then were revised and expanded, and continued through the fourth edition (the second edition
publishedin1889, the thirdin 1891 andthe fourthposthumouslyin1904). The fourth(and the final)
editioncontained369 rules.The LibraryAssociation (UK) later brought out at least three reprints of
this final edition (1938, .1948 and 1953) which is proof enough of the popularity of the code even
longafterthe demise of the author. Ranganathan commenting about the code had to say that "RDC
[Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue] is indeed a classic. It is immortal. Its influence has been
overpowering.Itinhibitsfree rethinking even today. Being a one man's creation it has been largely
apprehended intuitively. This is why RDC is whole as an egg". Indeed the value of the code
diminishedthe leasteventothisday. The chief merit of the code lies in the pragmatism applied by
the author in the making of the rules and in setting forth "what might be called a set of first
principles"togovernthe creation of rulesandtheirpractical application. Although, generally, many
cite three principlesashavingbeenarticulatedbyCutter,he indeedpostulatedmore thanthree.The
first principle may be called the `principle of convenience of the public.' Cutter declared that
"catalogingisan art, not a science.Norulescantake the place of experience andgoodjudgmentbut
some of the resultsof experience maybestbe indicatedbyrules."Hisemphasiswason pragmatism,
i.e.,practical experience andproperjudgment.AccordingtoCutter,the convenience of the public is
always to be set before the ease of the cataloguer. In most cases, they may coincide. A plain rule
without exceptions is not only easy for us to carry out but easy for the public to understand and
work by. But strict consistency in a rule and uniformity in application sometimes lead to practices
which clash with the public's habitual way of looking at things. When the habits are general and
deeply rooted, it is unwise for the cataloguer to ignore them, even if they demand a sacrifice of
systemandsimplicity."He favoured,therefore,whereverneeded,flexibility of rules. and sensitivity

to user's requirements. He was opposed to Jewett's legalistic approach (i.e., a cataloging rule for
everycataloguingproblem), insistence on strict application of rules and adherence to consistency.
Consistency,nodoubt,isavirtue butit cannot be an absolute and unviolable principle. The second
principle is the `principle of collocation.' Cutter, however, did not use the term, collocation. He
meantit bystatingthat the catalogue shouldfacilitatelocationof all booksof anauthor(i.e., entries
for all books of an author) by bringing them together in one place. For, he believed that catalogue
was something more than a mere finding list "for a given book by an author." The third principle
relatestosubjectentry/heading.Thismaybe calledthe `principle of specific and consistent subject
entry.' Besides these three principles, a couple of principles may also be inferred and added. The
fourth one may be termed as the `principle of adequate description.' Cutter did not name it. A
library could accordingly, adopt the rules in a code wholly or partially (i.e., in varying degrees of
details) dependinguponthe nature andsize of the collectionaswell asthe objectives of the library;
A furtherprinciple whichcanalso be surmised is the `principle of probable association.' The choice
of entry (from among possible alternative methods), Cutter started, "choose that entry that will
probablybe 'firstlookedunderbythe classof people whouse the library.Structurally,itisawell laid
comprehensive code,the rulescoveringthe whole of cataloguingprocedures.Itisorganisedinthree
parts. The first part constitutes the preliminaries or prefatory notes. Cutter discussed in this part
some basicissues, suchas objectsof catalogue,the meansandme Library Catalogue Codes thods to
attainthem,definitions(of cataloguingterms)includinganote onclassificationof particular value is
the statementof objects,meansandmethods.Some claimthistooasa setof empirical principles. It
is as follows: "Objects: 1. To enable a person to find a book of which either (a) the author, (b) the
title, (c) the subject is known. 2. To show what the library has (d) by a given author, (e) on a given
subject, (f) in a given kind of literature. 3. To assist in the choice of a book (g) as to its edition
(bibliographically) (h) to its character (literary or topical). Means: Author entry with the necessary
reference (foraandd). 2. Title entryor title reference (for b.) 3. Subject entry, cross reference, and
classed subject table (for c and e) 4. Form entry and language entry (for f) 5. Giving edition and
imprint,with notes when necessary (for g). 6. Notes (for h) Reasons for choice: Among the several
possible methods of attaining the objects other things being equal, choose that entry, (1) that will
probablybe firstlookedunderbythe classof people whouse the library; (2.) that is consistent with
otherentries so that one principle can cover all; (3) that will mass entries least, in places were it is
difficult to so arrange them` that they can be readily found, as under names of nations and cities."
Although it is said that Cutter's code found refuge in tradition it certainly helped a codification of
policiesneeded by American Libraries. Many issues raised by him became the subject of intensive
debate inlaterperiod.Akers'observation that after 1876, "there has been no further development
in principles although an enormous amount of work has been done in amplifying, codifying, and
clarifyingrules,whichhascontributedtoaneeded uniformity of practice", is a comment indeed on
the positive as well as the negative sides of the influence that Cutter's code exerted on the
subsequenteffortsof code making.Thisaspectwill be revealingitselfaswe progress in studying the
later codes.
AA Code of 1908 Cataloging rules:
Author and title entries / compiled by Committees of the Library Association and the American
Library Association. - English edition. - London: Library Association, 1908. - American edition:

Chicago: American Library Association, 1908. At the turn of the, present century there were
divergent codes in application among the libraries both in America and in England. American
librarieswere using various codes such as Cutter's rules, ALA rules, Dewey's rules, etc. In addition,
the introduction of printed card distribution by the Library of Congress made many librarie s to
adhere to the LC's practice. In England, the BM rules, LA rules, Bodleian rules, etc. were in use
among the libraries. There was a renewed debate over the need for a sound philosophy of
cataloguing to find better solutions to the problems of bibliographic organisation and to establish
cooperative and centralised systems for ensuring greater uniformity and economy in cataloguing
practices. The aim was to meet the " requirements of larger libraries of a scholarly character". This
setthe precedentsothatthe subsequentcodeswere similarly aimed at and were largely drawn up
primarily oriented to the needs of large research libraries. On account of practical considerations;
the code hadto work outcompromise betweenthe differingpracticesof the LC and other American
researchlibraries.Next,becausethe twocollaborating American and British groups could not reach
full agreementonall details,alternative ruleswere made toaccommodate the British and American
preferences that differed. As a result the code was published in two somewhat differing texts
(AmericanandEnglishtexts).The code createdalabyrinthof corporate entry and made the dubious
distinctionasbetweensocietyandassociationonone handandinstitution(restricted to permanent
establishments) onthe otherhand.However,itlaidemphasisonandwide application of authorship
principle.It presented a slightly better definition of author over the one given by Cutter. It was an
incomplete code withoutrulesfordescription, subject cataloguing and filing, But it came into wide
use inthe librariesinboththe countriesincludingafew other nations where English was the library
language.
Prussian Instructions The Prussian instructions.
Rules for the alphabetical catalogues of the Prussian libraries l translated from the 2nd edition,
authorized,1908; withan introductionandnotesbyAndrew DOsborn._ AnnArborMich: University
of Michigan Press, 1938.
A committee was appointed to study the Royal Library Code (i.e., the modified Instructions of
Dziaztko) to make improvements in the matter of bibliographical description. This resulted in the
PrussianInstructions,i.e.,Instruktionenfurdie Alphabetischencatalogue derPrussianBibliotheken,
published in 1899. Its English translation rendered by A D Osborn was published in 1938. This code
representedthe Germanpractice which differed from the AngloAmerican tradition, at least in two
aspects.It prescribedgrammatical ratherthanmechanical title.Intitle entry,the first grammatically
independentwordinsteadof firstword(otherthanarticle) as opposed to Anglo-American practice,
was prescribed. The second major difference was that the code did not accept the concept of
corporate authorship. It treated corporate publications as a class of anonymous publications.
Vatican Rules Vatican Library.
Rulesforthe Catalogue of Printed Books I translated from the 2nd Italian edition 1938, by the very
Rev.ThomasJ. Shanahan,VictorA.Shaefer,Constantine T. Vesselowsky; Wyllis E. Wright, editor. --
Chicago: American Library Association, 1948. - 3rd Italian edition published in 1949. The code was
the resultof a decisiontakenin1927 to prepare a new catalogue of the printedbooks in the Vatican

Library (Rome) which was in the process of reorganisation. Since the catalogue of the Original
collectionpreparedatthe endof the 17th centurywasincomplete andalsooutmoded,anew up-to-
date catalogue was contemplated. Because of the involvement of the American experts and of
American trained personnel, the code reflected American bias. Wyllis E. Wright, who wrote the
foreword to the English translation of the code claimed it as "the most complete statement of
Americancataloguingpractice."Nextto Cutter's rules, this was the other code that was a complete
and comprehensive code,coveringall the aspectsof cataloguing. It provided for entry (author, title
entries), description, subject headings and filing. The rules for subject cataloguing stated general
principlesandincludedinstructionson formsandspecificareasof application.Itisalsoclaimedasan
international code.
Classified Catalogue Code
Ranganathan(Shiyali Ramamrita) (1892-1972).- ClassifiedCatalogue Code with Additional Rules for
DictionaryCatalogue Code.Ed5. Assistedby A Neelameghan.The firstedition appeared in 1934 and
was continuedthroughfiveeditions,the last(i.e.,the 5thedition) comingin 1964. Each later edition
was an improvementonthe earlierone,the revision,additionorimprovementmade on the basis of
practical application and critical examination supported by teaching and reasoning. This empirical,
analytical and critical approach shaped the code progressively.
The second edition (1945) demonstrated the symbiotic relationship between classification and
catalogingandevolvedchainprocedure for subject cataloguing/indexing. Rules for style of writing
and alphabetisationcorrelatingthe twothroughGestalttheoryof alphabetisationwere other added
features of this edition. Ranganathan's comparative study of classified and dictionary, catalogues
and evaluation of Cutter's rules helped him publish his Dictionary Catalogue Code in 1945.
The third edition (1951) added rules for compiling union catalogue of periodical publications,
abstractingperiodical andincorporatingaswell,aglossaryof EnglishSanskrittermstobe helpful for
developing cognate terminology in other Indian languages.
The fourthedition(1955) implementedthe lay-outforacatalogue code (in the light of Heading and
Canons), added supplementary rules for national bibliography, rearranged the rules for
determination of authorship, choice of heading and rendering the heading. It also incorporated
further additional rules for style of writing effecting corresponding changes in the rules for
alphabetisation.Thisedition,asaresultof his comparative studyof five codes (Heading and Canons
publishedin1955) made necessaryfurthercorrectionsandalterationswhicheliminatedthe needfor
a separate dictionary catalogue code.
The fifth editi Library Catalogue Codes on (1964) included new chapters on Law of parsimony,
physical form,centralized cataloguing, homonyms in class index entries and feature headings, and
nonconventional documents. Typographical and other simple errors were corrected, a little
rewordingwasdone andbetterexampleswere added.Whilethe codes for alphabetical, author and
dictionarycataloguesare quite large innumber,the codesorientedtoclassifiedcatalogue are fewin
number.Ranganathan's Classified Catalogue code (CCC) is one prominent code of these few. After
Cutter's rules and Vatican code, the CCC is the only other code which is complete to cover all the
cataloguingproceduresandtoprovide rulesforentry,description,subjectcataloguing/indexing and
filing.

Before Ranganathan,there were no catalogue codes ever produced In India. Neither was there an
established bibliographic/cataloguing tradition. The code (CCC) is the first and the only code
designedinIndia.Itwasmostlyanintuitive effortbutapplyingscientificmethod toensure precision
and correctness. This however, does not go to say that the code was entirely a product of prestine
mind. Ranganathan, educated in England had the benefit of exposure to western thought and
practice,whichdefinitely provided the needed background to work out independently. There are,
therefore,manyinfluences.Yetthe code isdistinctivelyRanganathan'sown.Whatishis own adds to
the merit, and what is not to its weakness.
Structurally, it is a well laid code. The code can be divided into three units. The first 9 parts/
chapters (A to H and D form the approach. Many basic issues, more importantly, canons and
normative principles;partsandphysical formsof catalogue,centralisedcataloguing;recording,style,
language andscript,arrangementof entries;conflictof authorshipandresolution(determination of
authorship);name of person,(i.e.,structure,element,etc.) are dealtwith.The next11chapters(K to
N,P to V) constitute the substantial part,i.e.,rulesforrenderingnames (persons, corporate bodies,
geographical entities);preparationof classIndex entries; main and book index entries for different
categories of books and periodicals; additional rules for compilation of union catalogues of books
and periodical publications; National bibliography; indexing periodical; abstracting periodical; and
cataloguingof incunabulaandnon-bookmaterials.The lastpart(W) constitutesendmatter(glossary
of terms, bibliographic references and index).
The rulesare markedfor their simplicity,clarityandbrevity.The code drawsa distinctionbetweena
librarycatalogue anda bibliography.Elaboratedescriptionisanecessityinbibliography and not in a
librarycatalogue.Therefore,CCCdoesnotprescribe recording of imprint, collation, many details in
notes,statementof responsibilityinthe title section, etc. The rules for determining authorship are
based on a set of problems explained as conflicts of authorship. The rules relating to rendering of
names/headings for persons, corporate bodies and geographic entities are based on language,
nationalityandcultural preferenceswhichare postulatedthroughprinciples.The empirical approach
and applicationof normative principles in drafting and arranging the rules have CCC a model code.
The fact that it does not cover the entire range of various types of material makes it a less
comprehensive code.Nocode canbe perfectinall details.CCCisnoexception.Itneedsrevision and
rethinking so as to capture and respond to the many changes that have come about after its
publication in 1964.
ALA Rules (prel 2nd ed)
AmericanLibrary Association. ALA Catalog Rules: Author and Title Entries. - Prel 2nd ed. - Chicago:
American Library Association, 1941. Within two decades of implementation of the joint code of
1908, libraries in America as well as in England began voicing dissatisfaction. In America, libraries
which received the LC printed cards (introduced in 1901) revised their existing catalogues to
conform to the LC practice. Large research libraries found it difficult to apply the 1908 code to new
classesof materialsacquiredbythembecause of lackof rulescoveringsuchitems. So, to respond to
the demandsof the librariesfurtherrevisionorrecodification of rules had to be taken up. The rules
were organisedintwoparts,viz.,entryandheading,anddescription.The code followedthe existing
practices than prescribing the idel and the right. The attempt to render all the bibliographic
variations into something like a statute law was stated as the principal fault of this draft code. The

professional opposition to the size and the complexityof the code first manifested in the area of
descriptive cataloguing and next, of course, in the rules for author and title entries. Further
improvement (revision work) on part 2 (description) was therefore deferred or given up.
L C Descriptive Rules Library of Congress.
Rules for Descriptive cataloging at the Library of Congress Adopted by the American Library
Association. - Washington,D.C.:Libraryof Congress, 1949. As evident from the title, it was adopted
and given official recognition by the American Library Association as the standard for descriptive
cataloguing. As a natural consequence, it replaced the second part (i.e., descriptive rules) in 1949
ALA rules, 2nd definitive edition which was also published by the ALA in the same year.
ALA Rules (2nd definitive edition) American Library Association.
ALA catalogingrulesforauthorand title entries. - 2nded./ Clara Beetle,editor. - Chicago: American
Library Association, 1949. The criticism of the 1941 draft code of ALA rules faulted the code in
general and the descriptive rules part more in particular. The code needed revision, recasting and
finalisation. This code (1949. ALA 2nd ed.) was limited to rules for entry and heading only. It
represented somewhat an expansion and elaboration of the 1908 code. It did not state and apply
any guidingprinciples. The code proved exceedingly complicated to use. For about a decade and a
half (i.e.,until the AACRIappeared) the arrangementof using the twin codes (the 1949 ALA 2nd ed.
sand the 1949 LC rules) in conjunction as the American standards for cataloguing continued. But
cataloguers always found it tedious and inconvenient to have to refer to one code for entry and
heading work and another for description. Since the LC code of descriptive rules covered printed
material only, it required the use of other aids br standards for describing other non-print items
(e.g., LC's Motion pictures and film strips, Phonorecords, and Picture designs and other two-
dimensional representations - three separate booklets). Like the earlier preliminary draft second
edition,the definitive second edition too was targeted for criticism. While the LC descriptive rules
lookedforward,the ALA code looked backward. A more coherent and unified code therefore . was
demanded.
AACR 1(1967)
Anglo-American cataloging rules / prepared by the American Library Association, the Library of
Congress, the Library Association, and the Canadian Library Association. - North American ext.-
Chicago: Americanlibrary Association, 1967. - Reprinted in 1970 with supplement of additions and
changes. - Britishtextpublished:London Library Association, 1967. At this time, the long cherished
goal of internationalcode renewed itself and appeared a possibility. The International Conference
on CataloguingPrinciples convened in Paris in October 1961, adopted and accepted a statement of
principlesinwholeorpartby delegationsfrom 53 countries and 12 international organisations. The
Report of the International Conference was issued in 1963. It drew upon Lubetzky's 1960 code and
restated the objectives of both Lubetzky and Cutter. The statement of principles rested on the
objectives and were expressed in specific terms. The importance of this report lies in its
endorsement of corporate entry and establishment of natural rather than grammatical order of
arrangement of title, thus, removing the major differences between the AngloAmerican and
Germanictraditionsof cataloguing.Followingthe InternationalConference onCataloguingPrinciples
manyother national catalogue codeswere revised or developed, eg, the German Code (Regeln fur

die alphebetischekatalogisierung,the Swedishcode,the Danishcode, etc.),leveling the differences
betweennationalpractices.The newcode (knownasAACR1) appearedin1967 andwas receivedby
the professionwith,amixedreaction.The rulesinthe code were organisedin 2 parts, part 1 dealing
withentryand 'heading consistingof four chapters, and part 2 covering description presented in 10
chapters. The code applied reevaluation of the existing practices. It was seen as a better code in
termsof itsmore logical groupingof the ruleswithemphasisonconditionsof authorshipratherthan
on classes of authors (married women, princes of blood, etc) and kinds of publications (anna,
dictionaries, encyclopaedias, etc). It corresponded, more than the earlier codes to the patterns of
intelligent users instead of blindly ruling preparation of entries, which may be precise, consistent
and technicallycorrect.Itgave preferencetothe formof name preferredorusedby the author than
hisreal/official name.Titlepage of the itemcataloguedwasprescribedas the source of information
for cataloguingagainstthe oldpractice of derivingdetailsfromoutsidesources.Similarly,inthe case
of change of names of corporate bodies, entry was required under the changed/new name. The
code,furtheremphasisedthe function of assembling bibliographic units by providing uniform title
entry more widely. But some of the vestiges of old practices remained. For example, the
authorialstatus to editors and compilers, entry under place names for certain corporate bodies
continued. On this and certain other points since the American and British Committees could not
reach agreement, the code was published in two slightly differing texts like the 1908 code. When
workon AACR1 began,booksandperiodicalswere the basic and popular materials. Card catalogue
was the norm. But when the code appeared in 1967 the situation changed vastly. As a result of
technology,a variety of new media (non-book materials) found their way into libraries. Computer
manipulationof datamade possibleotherformsof catalogue.The needto integrate the descriptive
records(catalogue entries) of different forms of material (book and non-book items) necessitated
studies to find analogies between their characteristics). IFLA brought out a document entitled
International Standard Bibliographic Description (for single and multi-volume monographic
publications) in 1971. This was later improved/revised and published in 1974 as ISBD(M):
International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications, 1st standard ed.
Along with it another standard for serials, viz., ISBD(S) International Standard Bibliographic
Description for Serials was also published. The AACR I incorporated these documents and revised
chapter6 (separatelypublishedmonographs)in1974 followedbychapter 12 (for audiovisual media
and special instructional materials) in 1975 and chapter 14 (for sound recordings) in 1976. IFLA's
International standards for other kinds of material including a general one followed in succession.
Thispiecemeal revisionwasfoundunsatisfactory. It needed development of overall principles and
integration of descriptive rules for various media. The expanded cooperation between the
cataloguingagenciesinGreatBritain,Americaandothercountriesas well as the increase in the use
of UKMARC andLCMARC broughtaboutagreementfora single unifiedtextof code, the ambiguities
and differences resolved.'
AACR 2 (1978)
Anglo-Americancatalogingrules/Preparedbythe AmericanLibrary Association, the British Library,
the CanadianCommittee onCataloguing,the LibraryAssociation, the Library of Congress; edited by
Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler. 2nd ed. - London: Library Association; Chicago : American
Library Association, 1978. This second edition proved superior revealing basic principles that
provided the edifice of the code. It followed "the sequence of cataloguers' operations in most
present-daylibrariesandbibliographic.agencies,"i.e.,firstexaminingthe item and describing it and

then determining the access points. The code therefore, presented the descriptive rules in part 1
followed by rules for determining and establishing headings/access points in part 2. Part 1 begins
with a general chapter which can be applied to all materials in general followed by chapters on
specificmediawhichare elaborationsof the provisionsof the general chapter.These ruleswere also
based on ISBDs (the general and specific ones). In the description the code permitted alternative
rulesandoptionsto suit the needs of the libraries and cataloguing agencies. In the rules for access
points, it worked out many terminological improvements to remove conceptual irritants, eg,
statement of responsibility in place of statement of authorship, corporate entry, instead of
corporate author, etc. It standardized punctuation to conform to the pattern established in ISBDs.
AACR 2, 1988 revised
Anglo-Americancatalogingrules/preparedunderthe directionof the Joint Steering Committee for
Revision of AACR, a committee of the American Library Association, the Australian Committee on
Cataloguing,the BritishLibrary,the CanadianCommitteeonCataloguingthe LibraryAssociation, the
Library of Congress; edited by Michael Gorman and Paul,W Winkler. - 2nd ed., 1988 revision. -
Ottawa: Canadian Library Association; London : Library Association Publishing Limited; Chicago:
American Library Association, 1988. The implementation of AACR 2 (1978) code was begun by the
Libraryof CongressinJan 1981. Like the earlieredition(AACR1),the secondedition too appeared at
a time whenthere were rapiddevelopmentstakingplace.More importantandof greaterimmediate
relevance was the emergence of many new forms of material which were still in shaping.
AIthoughthe code (AACR2) resolvedthe problemsof authorshipmore satisfactorily, the rules were
foundinadequate indealingwithnew media. In course of implementation of the code, some rules
presented themselves as confusing, insufficient and complicated. This gave rise to differences in
interpretation.Therefore, attempts were made to clarify, expand or alter rules in necessary cases.
The Library of Congress notified the interpretations and modifications in its Cataloguing service
bulletin.
Three setsof revisionsof AACR2comprisingof Geographical corrections,Textual amendments, and
alteredandadditional ruleswere issuedin1982, 1984 and 1986. These were followedalsobya draft
revisionof chapter.9 forcomputerfiles.The code toocame intowideruse andfound translations in
manylanguages(e.g., Arabic, Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese, Danish, Finnish, French, Italian, Japanese,
Norwegian,Portuguese,Spanish,Swedish,Turkish,Urduandpossibly others) In view of the changes
and additionsthatwere broughtoutandthe growingpopularityanduse of the code, it was decided
to revise it.The revisedcode,it was further decided, to be named as AACR 2, 1988 revision and not
as 3rd edition.The revisionsought to incorporate the additions and modifications already made as
well asfurtherrevisionscontemplated,viz.,descriptionof material forthe blind (tactile), rethinking
of the conceptof separate bibliographical identities,treatmentof titles,authorheadings,geographic
names and corporate bodies, corrections, rewording and addition of new examples.
The revision,therefore,didnotresulteitherinthe change of basicconcepts,principles or structure.
While the prominent changes applied to computer files, other changes related to the material for
the blind, sound recordings, music, etc. In order to achieve greater conformity in establishing
headings, a few rules were changed. These changes include redetermining of title proper,

redesignation of GMD in a few instances, addition of distinctions in the rules for choice of
pseudonyms, deletion of option to qualify place names (by adding larger areas/ jurisdictions),
additionof geographical identifierstoidentical corporate bodies, redefining the type 3 subordinate
corporate body, recasting of uniform titles, entry additionally under corporate name (other than
publisher, distributor, etc.) in the case of some cartographic material, etc.
The rules are presented in two parts (as was the case also in the 2nd ed). Part one consists of
descriptive rules in 13 chapters. Chapter 1 has the general rules which provide the general frame
withinwhichdescriptiverulesforspecificclassesof materialfollow.Chapter13 alsocontainsgeneral
rules for analysis of specific types. These are as follows
Part 1 Description:Chapters1.General rules of description, 2. Books, Pamphlets and Monographs;
3. Cartographic Materials, 4 Manuscripts (including manuscript collections), 5. Music (Published
music),6. SoundRecordings,7.Motion Pictures and Video Recordings, 8. Cartographic Materials, 9.
Computer Files, 10. Three-dimensional Artifacts and Realia, 11. Microform, 12. Serials and 13.
Analysis
Part 2. Headings,uniformtitlesandreferences:Chapters 21. Choice .of Access Points, 22. Headings
for Persons, 23. Geographic Names, 24. Headings for Corporate Bodies, 25. Uniform Titles, and 26.
References
The third part constitutes the end matter. It consists of Appendixes, A. Capitalization, B.
Abbreviations, C. Numerals, and D. Glossary, and an Index.
Each part has one introductory chapter. The rules in the 12 chapters of part 1 (Description) have
mnemonic numbering to facilitate to and fro reference to rules applying to appropriate areas. The
descriptive rules are presented first, obviously because cataloguing begins with description, then
followthe tasksof determinationandestablishment of headings. So, rules for access points, choice
of forms of headings are given in the second part. The gap between Chapters 13 and 21 is left to
incorporate descriptive rules for new classes of materials that may come (in which case Chapter 13
may be renumbered). In both parts the rules follow the order of general to specific. The code has
provision for optional rules and alternative rules- to accommodate the varying requirements of
libraries.
The preface states that "cat Library Catalogue Codes aloging rules cannot be static, they must be
allowed to respond to changing needs". What is meant by this is that revision does not stop at any
time. It goes on. Further revisions become necessary. So, for the present, AACR 2, 1988 revision is
the latest in the Anglo-American family of codes. All the earlier ones stand superseded.
CONCLUSION-
Three basictheme,in first instance,we examined the what and why of cataloguing and cataloguing
code.Thenwe traced brieflythe evolutionof catalogue practice andnotedthe factorthatinfluenced
and shapedboth.Besides,we alsoidentifyprinciplesthatsquick surfaced.wemade aquicksurvey of
the historyand development of catalogue code beginning with 19th
century.

History of cataloguing code

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to History of cataloguing code (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

History of cataloguing code