[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jan 8 18:16:19 CST 2015
> This was my point from before. Oddly, I can't now seem to find the bit
> thought was in the Code requiring Zoobank registration BEFORE publication!
> Art 8.5. (below) seems OK from this point of view:
It's implied that registration must happen before a work can be considered
available, because the registration number (or other evidence of
registration) must be included within the work itself. Basically, in order
to be available, an electronic work must ITSELF include:
1. the "date" of publication (which can be only a year)
2. evidence that registration has occurred
3. all the other stuff that is required for both paper and electronic works.
Separately, the associated ZooBank record must include:
4. the intended archive
5. ISSN or ISBN
In my mind, the work becomes available as soon as all five points are
The real problem that we're dancing around is not the meaning of the word
"published", but rather the meaning of the word "issued".
For example, suppose a PDF was put online in 2011, and fulfilled all five
points above. It was not available in 2011, because Art. 8.5.1 says that it
must "have been issued after 2011". So, what does "issued" mean? Assuming
the PDF was still downloadable (=obtainable) on 1 January 2012, then is it
considered to have been "issued" on that date (as well as every other date
that the work is obtainable)? I can see arguments both ways.
The word "issue" or "issued" appears 17 times in the Amended Article 8. But
it's not defined in the Glossary (closest definition is within the
definition of "publish").
> But 8.5 now opens another can of worms. Now it looks like a forgotten
> registration can be added in at any stage, thereby making a valid
> from the date of registration (provided that the LSID is added to the PDF
> same date)!
I don't think anyone would argue that retroactively adding a ZooBank number
to an electronic publication pushes the date of availability (for purposes
of priority) back to the *registration* date. I think that the earliest
reasonable date in that case would be the date on which all requirements
were fulfilled. That is, the date on which an electronic work with the
ZooBank number included was obtainable (assuming other criteria met).
> 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??
Indeed! This is getting to the crux of my original long post on this
thread. Of course, we have the exact same problem with paper-based
publications too, so this problem is not peculiar to electronic
More information about the Taxacom