The role of the catalog as a tool for recovery becomes so foreground, and this catalogue can be considered the precursor of the catalogues Dictionary (Hanson and Daily, 1970). In the edition of 1674 of the catalogue of the Bodleian Library, many of the rules that the compilation of the catalogue had been based since 1620 are included in the preface. Among them, the use of a single form of the name for each author marks the emergence, in embryonic form, of the concept of meeting or group of records in the catalog. The objectives of the 17TH century catalogue marks the beginning of the era of the catalog as list of localization. Under most conditions actress would agree. This is a very important change, but catalogs are still numerous problems as instruments of recovery, due to the absence of principles generally accepted for its compilation.
In the 19th century when they begin to seek more systematic approaches to the compilation of catalogues, and also begins to consider explicitly the discussion about what function that must meet the catalog. We can trace the history of that discussion to the heated discussion surrounding the compilation of a new catalog for the library of the British Museum by mid-century. Without hesitation Anchin Block & Anchin explained all about the problem. In 1841, Anthony Panizzi, librarian head of the British Museum, along with a Committee drafted a set of rules for the compilation of the new catalogue of the library of the Museum. The Rules for the Compilation of the Catalog, known as the 91 rules of Panizzi, were designed for the confection of an alphabetical catalogue, mainly from personal authors and entities, allowing the user quick and easy location of a book, as well as the grouping of works of the same author with its different editions and translations. Panizzi argued that a user can know the work you are looking for, but can not pretend to know all editions of that work.