Hi,
I find that the canonical book rules fall apart very hard when they reach the major religious texts.
I've read the Koran, and it does not have a Quality of 10. Maybe 3. It is not an easy read. As for source level, it is about as useful for understanding Islamic Theology as the Gospels are for understanding medieval Christian theology. Which is to say, very little. In a similar way, it isn't at all obvious how Jews start at "don't cook a kid in its mother's milk" and arrive at "keep two sets of dishes and don't eat chicken within a few hours of eating cheese." Without outside help, a close reading of the Jewish Bible is not necessarily going to yield that insight. (And, FWIW, Jewish tradition acknowledges this. In a similar way, Christians and Muslims have supplemented their primary religious texts with a much larger volume of commentary, law and legendaria.)
On the other hand, the centrality of these texts is quite clear. In medieval mythology, these texts have a lot more to say. In ME, when the Talmud says, "Everything is in it (the Jewish Bible)" they mean exactly that: Everything.
Assigning Source and Quality levels to this kind of text ranges from mildly offensive (is the Koran really a better book than the Christian Bible?) to utterly missing the mark on how these texts were used.
There is also a more general issue at work: In RL, there is only so much I can learn about a topic through study. Once I know it, I can only learn more through original research that succeeds in breaking new ground. Refreshing the web page, reading another book that repeats the same information, doing another web search, none of this will avail. (But having seen more presentations of a topic, I will probably be able to teach it better.)
The canonical AM rules suggest a straightforward way of dealing with limits: A character can only study and train up to twice the level of the best summa he has read about some topic (art/ability/etc). Anything beyond that requires original research of some kind, or finding a better summa. You must read the entire summa to "rebase." You cannot start off with a tractatus, because the summa provides necessary context. A teacher can always teach you up to the level he knows, but the reason that teachers use standard texts (summae!) is that a student still needs a fundamental context to learn further on his own. Finally, any summa can be used as a tractatus equal to its quality, but this does not count as mastering it sufficiently for that to be considered the best summa.
The canonical rules also suggest a straightforward way of dealing with large libraries: A collection of books is nothing more than a collection of stuff, and follows the usual rules.
These two ideas are not quite compatible, and need refinement.
The problem of religious texts remains that. I dislike seeing numbers attached to these; I feel especially uncomfortable seeing numbers attached to books I am quite familiar with. (EG: Can you really become an expert on medieval Christian theology by reading a single book by St Augustine and nothing else???) I suppose I would have a similar issue with non-religious texts were I more familiar with them.
I need to think more.
Anyway,
Ken