Posting to RDA-L concerning the headings for the books of the Apocrypha. Should they be under Bible. O.T. as they are now?
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!