[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
agosti at amnh.org
Thu Jan 8 11:52:32 CST 2015
All this debate would go, if registration would include the submission of the publication at the same time, and similar to the type specimen, this submitted publication would be the "digital holotype" of this article. This would not mean right now that the article has to be open access, even though this would be the best and most transparent way, but for any matter of dispute, there is the ultimate copy available.
Storage could be solved, it would have a huge advantage for our science, that the articles are accessible in one single point, the registry.
It also would allow to have for each article a DOI that we could cite, either a Crossref DOI or a DataCite DOI that resolves and leads to the article. This is, what we all need in a digital age.
Thus, once again, we have to assure that this semi-legal documents, which lead to many long threads in list serves, waist a lot of expert time for arbitration are open access.
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul J. Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:32 PM
To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: pscranston at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:44:58 -1000
"Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> A couple points:
> - There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the preceding
> - All of these problems disappear if we establish a system whereby
> registered = available.
A good goal for a system of biological nomenclature is for it to be able to provide answers to nomenclatural questions. Errors will occur, and the problems won't entirely go away under a system of registered=available, but under such a system, it is much easier for there to be correct answers to nomenclatural questions and for those answers to be determinable.
In Mycotaxon in 2011 (doi:10.5248/116.513), several of us from IPNI, discussing the proposals for registration of fungal names, pointed to a "principle of eventually consistent" between a registration system and publication systems. Much of the messyness in this thread and in Rich's example in particular come from a registration system and a publication system which can both vary independently in order to try to become eventually consistent with each other. The problems don't go away (people will still make errors) if the registration system establishes certain facts and the onus is on the publication systems to become eventually consistent with those facts, but for nomenclature, there will be clear, easily discoverable, and unambiguuous answers to a large set of questions if publications can become eventually consistent with facts established in a registration system.
Under the variety of existing electronic publication and prepublication systems, certain facts about the publication of names are mutable in ways that are not easy to discover or establish, data and metadata may change with little or no provenance data about those changes, and authors may have limited control over these changes. A nomenclatural registration system that seeks to become eventually consistent with publication systems within which the facts may be rewritten feels much more prone to failure (and less likely to be able to assert clear answers to questions) than a system where publications can become eventually consistend with nomenclatural facts established by a registration system.
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole at morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom