Concerning the changes to the Apocrypha, I wish the powers of modern
computing could be employed to solve these matters. At its basis, I
don't think that this issue is any different from any other authorized
point: there is the conceptual consideration that everyone can more or
less agree on: the concept of "Bel and the Dragon" or "Tobit" or
"Apocrypha", but there is no agreement on the name of that concept. This
is the same as for Confucius or Santa Claus: everybody has their own
name for it, and there is no "correct" name. The Chinese form of
Confucius is no more "correct" than the English form but the English
form makes no sense to use for Chinese users, just as the Chinese form
makes no sense for English users. But you must choose one form as the
authorized form, and the moment you do that, you must alienate certain
groups who prefer some other form. If you change it again for those
groups, you make still other groups angry. Some of these groups can
react *very strongly*. It is a completely no-win situation.
Except this can be averted today. There is now no need for everybody to
be forced to use the same form of name since the point of organization,
e.g. LC Control Number for Bel and the Dragon 88039735 (but other means
can be used as well) can be used as a URI, while the actual form can
display according to how each library, or even each person wants.
I really wish that the resources could be placed into these kinds of
real solutions, instead of re-airing the same old arguments, as I am
sure catalogers were arguing these same issues about the Apocrypha 100
years ago!
--
James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
