[Taxacom] [iczn-list] ICZN position on Darwinius
barry_roth at yahoo.com
Fri May 22 17:20:11 CDT 2009
I used to think (without other evidence) that the framers of Article 9.7 had in mind University Microfilms or other similar operations that would run off copies of a dissertation ("unpublished work") upon demand. That article kept the editions so produced from being nomenclaturally available.
--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> Why, exactly, does Article 9.7 *NOT* now apply to the copies that
> PLoS printed today and is making available?
That's a good question; and one I've been struggling a bit with myself.
Here is Art. 9.7 in full:
Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work
within the meaning of the Code:
9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if
previously deposited in a library or other archive;
We could probably spend days dissecting the meaning of "Notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 8", but I'm not going to go there. I do tend to see a
bit of a paradox here, but my best interpretation is that it's meant for
works that fail to meet the criteria of "simultaneously obtainable" (Art.
8.1.3). In other words, if a publication exists only in non-durable form,
or only as a single copy on durable media (although, to be literal about it,
even a single electronic copy exists on durable media -- they don't call it
a "Hard" drive for nothing...so I can't even imagine any document that
doesn't exist as at least one copy on "durable" media -- except, perhaps,
for the spoken voice -- which isn't really a document.....but I digress).
Starting again: if a publication only exists as a single copy, then "print
on demand" seems to imply a failure to comply with 8.1.3. But....one
wonders, then, why we need Art. 9.7, if this situation is already dealt with
via Art. 8.1.3?
Perhaps Commissioners who were involved with the drafting of the 4th Edition
could comment on why Art. 9.7 was inserted, and if there was a specific
scenario they had in mind that either was not covered by Art. 8.1, or needed
further amplification and/or clarification.
More information about the Taxacom