[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Robin Leech releech at telus.net
Thu Jan 8 19:26:24 CST 2015


Yee Gods, what does it take to kill this thread?
Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: January-08-15 6:22 PM
To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'Paul van Rijckevorsel'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

> No. Possibly Paul can corfirm this, but, somewhere, there almost 
> certainly
WAS
> AT SOME STAGE a strong implication to the effect that a publication 
> must
be
> registered on Zoobank before it is published electronically. 

Yes. As I said, Art. 8.5.3 is about as strong an implication as one can get that registration must happen prior to when a work is considered published in the sense of the Code.  Note my use of the phrase "published in the sense of the Code" (which is all the code "cares" about).  Something may be "published" in the common, vernacular sense well before it is published in the sense of the Code.

> The problem of
> course is that once it is published without registration, you can't go
back in time
> to preregister it, so it cannot be published electronically. But now Art.
8.5
> doesn't seem to say that! Hmmm ...

No, you can't go back in time.  However, if an electronic work fails to fulfill the requirements of the Code, then it is not "published" in the sense of the code.  An electronic work cannot be "published without registration" ("published" in the sense of the Code), therefore there is no need to go back in time.  From the perspective of the Code, it is only published when all criteria are met.  It may have been obtainable in pre-published form (again, "published" in the sense of the Code) without included evidence of registration.  But it is only considered "published"
(in the sense of the Code) if the criteria are met.

> I think that the meaning of "issued" is actually quite clear, and so 
> that
a pre-
> 2011 electronic publication cannot be rendered valid by adding
registration etc.
> In fact, nothing before mid-2012 can be, because the archiving 
> statement
could
> not be made on ZooBank before then. There is published discussion on 
> this point, somewhere.

All electronic works (without paper equivalents) issued prior to 2012 do not exist as publications in the sense of the Code.  If an electronic work that is obtainable on January 1 2012 (regardless of whether it was also obtainable prior to this date) fulfills all the requirements of the Code for electronic publications, and no paper edition was made obtainable prior to that date, then why isn't that work considered to be published in the sense of the Code?  Of the 17 instances of the word "issue" or "issued" in Art. 8, only once is it qualified as "first issued" (Art. 8.1.2).

> You say [quote]I think that the earliest reasonable date in that case
would be
> the date on which all requirements were fulfilled[unquote]. But that 
> is
the
> problem! How can you tell on what date a missing LSID was added to a 
> PDF
if
> the publisher doesn't come clean and state that date?

Yes, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.  And that's the issue I was driving at in my post.  First we need to clarify exactly when the date of publication (for purposes of priority) would be in a case where we had perfect knowledge.  We don't even seem to have consensus on that yet.  Once we get consensus on that, then we next have to figure out how we determine when a work fulfilled the requirements of the Code.  But as I said, this is a problem that has always existed for works produced on paper. It's just that electronic publication has afforded us an opportunity to shine a spotlight on this long-standing problem.

> We don't have the same problem with dating paper publications as we 
> have
for
> electronic ones, as I'm sure that your colleague Neal can explain to you.
Ever
> been to a library? Journal issues in libraries have accession date 
> stamps
(and
> librarians have no reason to falsify them). 

Yes, and people get emailed PDFs, and files on hard drives have date-stamps when they were downloaded.  In my experience it's MUCH easier to figure out when a PDF was first obtainable than it is to figure out when a paper publication was first obtainable.

> The original idea behind archiving
> electronic publications was to make such archives the electronic
equivalent of
> libraries, but, because Zootaxa output is faster than archiving can 
> keep
up, this
> requirement got watered down to a mere statement of intent to archive.
> Hmmm...

That's pretty weird to hear you say that, given that Zhi-Qiang was a very strong proponent of archiving requirements during the discussion.  If you really want me to explain the Pandora's box that would have been opened by requiring archiving (rather than intent of archiving), then brace yourself for some really long emails.  Suffice it to say that we would have had a MUCH bigger mess than we have now. 

Aloha,
Rich 

_______________________________________________
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