releech at TELUSPLANET.NET
Thu Oct 31 19:17:28 CST 2002
When I sent in my original comments on CDs (from
a newspaper article), I meant it merely as another
comment, not something to work over again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Electronic publication
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Mesibov" <mesibov at SOUTHCOM.COM.AU>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:50 PM
> Subject: Electronic publication
> > A separate issue is print vs. CD. Under section 8.6 of the Code, could
> > not issue the CD as our 'primary' version, with a screen-print label and
> > on-CD information on date of publication, etc? In that case, would the
> > paper version not be a published work, but just a copy like the online
> > Dr Robert Mesibov
> My answer to this is yes, a CD is the "published" document if meeting
> rather simple requirements. See page XXV second paragraph. Only ink on
> paper was removed in 1985, and now read-only laser disks are admitted. I
> think it is very important to know what the mind-set of the Commission is.
> It is progressive. But it is cautious. The ICZN does not want a
> where they have to say. Ooops, let's back peddle on that one.
> I do not think the term "CD" is used in the Code. the term on page XXV
> XXVII is "laser-discs". When we at TILS determined to utilize read only
> CDs we asked some computer types and got different answers. They are
> written and read with lasers - so CDs are laser-discs in some tech's
> termonology. One said they are old, big, record sized digital discs ???
> The Glossary does not define "laser-disc". To us a CD is simple a
> "compact" laser-disc. We print between 200 and 500 of each issue on paper
> and then the entire Volume on CD annually.
> We use high quality CDs - and have been told they should last a few
> years if properly cared for. Is the same with true with paper? How many
> times have we wanted to find a mearly 100 year old publication and not
> able to as most copies are destroyed. BUT most importantly, I find one of
> my biggest frustrations in dealing with really old book is that the
> pictures are now way off from the original colors. So have these "paper"
> publications really been preserved? I say no. Sure, one can read the
> text fine (if the pages are all there or not broken up). But the pictures
> are yellowed, stained, and colors deteriorated. Sorry, I will bet any
> money any one wants that in 100 years our CDs will still have the texts
> photos _exactly_ as the day they were first published, while the paper
> copies will no longer be the same. Paper is not durable! Fire, water,
> oils from fingers, mould, bugs, light etc. Let's quit making paper out to
> be something it is not. Stone is a better media for those who want
> realllll durability. Engraved on granite - just go to the cemetery. Been
> out in the elements for 600 years and still legible. Set the book, CD,
> rock out there and I'll bet on the rock every time. Hey, they don't say
> "written in stone" for nothin'.
> Ron Gatrelle
More information about the Taxacom