Catalog, therefore, should not only inform about the existence of a book in particular, but also gather different editions and translations of a work (Lubetzky, 2001a). This conception was to catalog beyond list function location, and was, therefore, necessary to apply new techniques in your organization, which involved new and more complicated rules for its compilation. These rules and the conception of Panizzi were the subject of strong criticism from those who argued that the role of the catalog was only the serve as Locator list. Thomas Carlyle, one of the most staunch opponents of Panizzi and his new rules, stated that the objective of a catalogue was to indicate that a particular book was in the library. To meet this goal, he argued Carlyle, not too many rules were needed, nor that these were complicated. You can not reason missing him, but he certainly did not do justice to the underlying question at 91 Panizzi rules.
For Panizzi, the object of a catalog were not books in both individual and independent entities as he understood them Carlyle, but something more complex: each book was a particular edition of a work, a component within a set of different entities individual that they represented a common intellectual content. The catalog could not run out to inform the user of this book (this particular edition of this work) is in the library. It should go beyond, showing all editions of a work available in the library. For this reason, it was necessary that the catalog meet somehow all editions and translations of a particular work, so that if a user was looking for a book in particular, you will find it, not as an independent entity, without ties with each other, but in the context of all the editions of the work. Panizzi raises two functions for the catalogue: the identification of individual publications or editions, and the meeting of all editions of a work (Lubetzky, 2001a).