[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Daniel Leo Gustafsson kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 19:30:27 CST 2015


Why do you need to kill it? Does your mail server not allow you to erase
emails unread?

Cheers,
Daniel

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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