(no subject)

Current amusing discussion on AUTOCAT: Whether to take a book claiming to have been published on Pluto at its word and put that information in the publication data field, as RDA specifies to do (on the principle that we should describe the resource according to how it represents itself), or whether to overrule that on the idea that a patron looking for that book is not likely to think of that situation, and put in what we know to be the real data. Extra flavor from discussion of whether celestial bodies other than Earth are considered places and have geographical subject headings (yes, even though the Greek root means "the Earth"), served with a soupçon of "Pluto isn't a planet" (natch), which was deemed irrelevant to whether it could be considered a place for the purposes of having a publisher based there.

Just amused at the whimsical and slightly esoteric discussions that go on when talking about modelling the bibliographic universe, and how the tone wobbles back and forth from a bit wry to plain seriousness without any apparent awareness of the oddness of the example...