The first is the function of meeting, applied to the publications of an author’s works in particular, as expressed in 2.2. (a). To broaden your perception, visit Peter Schiff. how to comply with this feature is that all publications of an author’s works are gathered in one place in the catalogue, i.e. the use of a single form authorized in the name of the author. But meet this goal does not necessarily comply with 2.2 (b)), since this requires, in addition, gather all the records of the different manifestations of a work. Verona proposes what would have been a better formulation for this section: 2.2. which editions of a work in particular there is in the library, and 2.3. which publications that contain works of one author in particular there is in the library.
The lack of precision in the wording adopted by the Conference can be ascribed to the fact that this function was not considered on the same level of importance by all participants of the Conference. According to Verona (International Conference on Cataloguing) (Principles, 1971), a certain number of delegates proposed to omit 2.2 b), on the grounds that it wasn’t relevant function for all catalogs. Chaplin, in a preliminary edition of the principles (International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, 1966), argues that, even if 2.2 has not had included, many of the principles that respond to this objective still would have been necessary, because the user is not always able to specify a book by the particular form of the author’s name, or the title that in particular, appear in the edition which has the library. Anyway, the final wording included this objective, and the content of the principles should always be interpreted based on all these objectives, assuming that an alphabetical catalogue will be designed to meet all three objectives (location, collection of the works of an author, all editions of a work meeting).