[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 17:54:03 CST 2015


Rich said: 
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that, because a PDF was obtainable prior to when the work was available (i.e., prior to when the requirements of Art. 8.5 had been fulfilled), it somehow disqualifies any electronic edition, and thereby forces the work to be available only from a paper-printed edition.  I don't see where in the Code that is stated, or even implied.

This was my point from before. Oddly, I can't now seem to find the bit that I thought was in the Code requiring Zoobank registration BEFORE publication! Art 8.5. (below) seems OK from this point of view: 

8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must

8.5.1. have been issued after 2011,

8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself, and

8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred. 

I'm going to have to give this some more thought. I'm sure there was something in the Code requiring preregistration, but I could be wrong (or else the content has been covertly changed by the publisher (ICZN)!)

But 8.5 now opens another can of worms. Now it looks like a forgotten ZooBank registration can be added in at any stage, thereby making a valid publication from the date of registration (provided that the LSID is added to the PDF on the same date)! Given that the date of publication cited in the work itself can be incomplete or incorrect, how can we tell when the Zoobank LSID was subsequently added to a PDF? How can we tell the valid publication date??

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/1/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 9 January, 2015, 12:24 PM
 
 > In the example given
 by Richard Pyle I have no doubt that publication only
 > occurs with the paper version.
 > Art. 8.5 presents requirements for
 publication, and
 > 8.5.3 requires that at
 the moment of publication it must be registered, with the
 > requirements of 8.5.3.1, 8.5.3.2, and
 8.5.3.3 having been met. Any attempt to
 >
 read it differently pretty much negates the whole idea of
 having a Code in the
 > first place.
 
 Yes, I agree.  But the
 question is ... what is the "moment of
 publication"?  All you have done here is suggest that
 the date cannot be June 15 2014 (when the post-registration
 version of the electronic edition was obtainable).  But the
 Code does not say what the sequence of events should be
 (except for 8.1.2., which says that the work must be
 obtainable free of charge or by purchase "when first
 issued" -- whatever that means....).  If I understand
 you correctly, you are suggesting that, because a PDF was
 obtainable prior to when the work was available (i.e., prior
 to when the requirements of Art. 8.5 had been fulfilled), it
 somehow disqualifies any electronic edition, and thereby
 forces the work to be available only from a paper-printed
 edition.  I don't see where in the Code that is stated,
 or even implied.  All aspects of the Code were fulfilled in
 my hypothetical example on June 15. Why isn't June 15
 regarded as the "moment of publication" in your
 view?
 
 > As to the paper
 that started this thread, the important issue that remains
 is
 > indeed the question of what is going
 to be archived, in the line of 8.5.3.1. Is this
 > going to be the work that made the
 nomenclatural act available, or is it going
 > to be something that for the purposes of
 the publisher is the same ...
 
 As I stated in my email, what actually gets
 deposited in the archive is irrelevant, because the Code
 does not require that anything actually be archived. I think
 a strong case can be made that the Code implies that the
 work must be archived, but currently that is not what the
 Code actually says. Note that the wording of Art. 8.5.3.1
 was not an accident or an oversight: it was very
 deliberately worded the way it is.
 
 > The argument that no serious publisher
 would alter the contents of a work is
 >
 not all that helpful. Is every user of a name going to have
 to decide "Oh, this
 > name was not
 published by a serious publisher, so I am not going to take
 it into
 > account"; this sounds like
 a sure way to create chaos.
 
 On this point I completely agree.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich
 
 
 Richard L.
 Pyle, PhD
 Database Coordinator for Natural
 Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety
 Officer
 Department of Natural Sciences,
 Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
 
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 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 mailing list