Criticism of cataloging code reform, as seen in the pages of library resources and technical services (1957-66)

5Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The history of cataloging rules is often written as a story of continuous improvement toward a more rational and efficient code. Not all catalogers, however, have been in agreement that reform of the cataloging code has been improvement. The debate of the 1950s and 1960s over cataloging code reform, hosted in part by LRTS, is an example of conflicting values in the cataloging community. Seymour Lubetzky's proposal for a cataloging code based on logical principles eventually became the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, but many catalogers of the period felt that other values, such as tradition and the convenience of the user, also deserved consideration in the cataloging code.

References Powered by Scopus

Forging the anglo-american cataloging alliance: Descriptive cataloging, 1830-1908

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Anglo-American cataloguing rules and their future

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A look at fifty years of library resources & technical services

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Cresting toward the sea change: Literature review of cataloging and classification 2009-10

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Access and accessibility of academic libraries' electronic resources and services: Identifying themes in the literature from 2000 to the present

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Explaining Cataloging to a Six Year Old?

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Knowlton, S. A. (2009). Criticism of cataloging code reform, as seen in the pages of library resources and technical services (1957-66). Library Resources and Technical Services, 53(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.53n1.15

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

50%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

50%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 4

50%

Computer Science 3

38%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free