ICZN Code questions

Ron at Ron at
Fri Aug 23 13:15:47 CDT 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: ICZN Code questions

> Well, I figure that book and magazine publishing in digital format simply
> hasn't attained durable media, unchangeable and indefinitely archived
> content, non-proprietary format, and other requirements that would give
> electronic publication the same usefulness we have in paper copy.
> The amazing searchability and broad dissemination of electronic copies is
> not enough to make up for this lack. For example, CD-Roms have a lifetime
> say 20-30 years; who will copy the taxonomic information on these to new
> media; who will be able to read them with Win2025 or a microchip player
> WordXML?

Just a brief comment.  I think everyone is for electronic publication and
resources.  To not be would be to want to stick with hand cranking phones
or ink and quill.  But two things are the reality - for us.  One is that
these media are still very new and thus a great deal of uncertainty exists
as to what will be exist even in the near future - remember the 8 track.
Second is the fact that this is all in the hands of commercial enterprise.
Anything outside that would be prohibitively expensive.   In simple terms,
we all want to open the can but it is a can of worms - and perhaps a few
viruses too.

Having said that, we consider our annual Volume of The Taxonomic Report on
CD-R to be our primary archived product.  I guess that just shows the power
of the media.  It may end up being a destructive black hole, but right now
it is hard to resist being lured into ECM (electronic media publication).
We're in and so far the water is fine.


> Although the government and libraries might take the lead in developing a
> universal medium and some standard universally searchable format (HTML4?
> XML?) to replace hardcopy scientific literature, I think commercial
> are being relied upon, and I haven't seen such a venture that I would
> as a long-term repository of taxonomic information.
> ______________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 36166-0299
> Email: richard.zander at mobot.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] ICZN Code questions
> > The Green Book is a good Code; it is the best we could get given
> > the time.  Many of the issues that have been posted last week (I
> > was on vacation) were presented to the ICZN, some were even in
> > the draft version (such as original spelling as the invariant
> > epithet), but in the end they all failed. And part of that was
> > because the digital community was not understood nor fully
> > represented. Oh, well ... ancient history now.
> My question is, with the incredible (and incredibly recent)
> of the digital age; including it's broader acceptance among those once
> branded as Ludites -- has the time yet come to revisit some of these
> once-failed ideas again in a formal ICZN context?  Anyone with any sence
> perspective *KNOWS* we're inevitably headed that way anyway.  The
> is, are the nerves still too raw?  The technology not yet fully matured?
> Should we wait another year or decade?  Or, is it now time for the case
> built again?
> Aloha,
> Rich
> Richard L. Pyle
> Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html
> "The opinions expressed are those of the sender, and not necessarily
> of Bishop Museum."

More information about the Taxacom mailing list