Electronic publishing

Peter Rauch anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU
Sat Mar 16 10:47:30 CST 1996

> Date:         Sat, 16 Mar 1996 12:08:13 -0600
> From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at DENR1.IGIS.UIUC.EDU>
> Rodham E. Tulloss wrote:
> >
> >The physical object is not the only issue.
> > ...  Who is
> >going to manage the problem of keeping everything readable?  I.e., keeping
> >all readers or recopying EVERYTHING into temporarily safe new formats?
> >
> >R. E. Tulloss
> >
> >How about the ICZN/ICBN setting up working groups on this problem.
> >Permanent working groups with staff to carry out the transfer of
> >necessary of data.
>  ... No "electronic
> publisher" who is not explicitly ready and willing to maintain proper
> archives will get systematists' patronage. We are not passive victims here,
>  ... WE can
> set the rules, and that's simply the first and most obvious one we should
> set; archives are the PUBLISHER'S responsibility. If they can't handle it,
> then they aren't fit to be electronic publishers. This is NOT a problem
> that requires *us* to set up committees or working groups.
> Doug Yanega

Just to be sure whether I agree,  ...I would say that we DO need to
set up committees and working groups  --to define that set of rules
(e.g., the ones Doug named) for which we want an infrastructure to be
built to service OUR needs. And, I would say that it is not the
pubisher's responsibility, but the archival and retrieval
infrastructure that must be put in place for US (not by us). Now,
whether that infrastructure is sustained by the publishers, by the
libraries, or by the professional societies is all negotiable, I think
--although the traditional library model is probably the first place
I would look to for revamping, collaboration and support.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list