Naming new collections

There have been frequent complaints about the unwieldy and opaque names given to pre-Gratian canon law collections. There are, in fact, a number of profound and thorny issues related to the naming of collections. At the CCL we are facing more superficial, practical concerns: how shall we identify collections not hitherto named that are contributed as transcriptions to the CCL? (We already have two such collections, and anticipate that this will be a frequent problem). We are not inclined to follow the convention of naming collections according to the number of chapters or titles: the number frequently changes from one manuscript to the next. We hesitate to name a collection after the first manuscript in which we find it, for there may be a better witness in another manuscript, and besides, the names become awfully long. Most transcribers (or editors) are loathe to risk identification of an author or context for an anonymous collection. Identifying a collection with respect to its relation to another also seems presumptuous. We welcome your thoughts on this awful problem.