[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 19:46:33 CST 2015
This is getting too messed up. There WAS something much stronger than Art. 8.5.3, but it seems to have vanished! The subtle distnctions between "published", "published according to the Code" and "issued" are just to ephemeral to get a handle on. The Code has always equivocated between "published" and "validly published"(="published according to the Code"). To cut a long story short, we really don't know where we are with electronic publication. It is all one big mess. Everyone is in just too much of a hurry to care, apart from those with vested interests, but they don't care about anyone else. Looking at the Code online, I am now rolling my eyes, for I have just noticed that Art. 8.5, which is an amendment regarding electronic publication, is listed in the contents side bar as 8.5. Works produced after 1985 and before 2000. So much for consistency ...
On Fri, 9/1/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 9 January, 2015, 2:21 PM
> No. Possibly Paul
can corfirm this, but, somewhere, there almost certainly
> AT SOME STAGE a strong
implication to the effect that a publication must
> 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
registration must happen prior to when a work is considered
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
sense of the Code.
> course is that once it is
published without registration, you can't go
back in time
preregister it, so it cannot be published electronically.
But now Art.
doesn't seem to say that! Hmmm ...
No, you can't go back in time. However,
if an electronic work fails to
requirements of the Code, then it is not
"published" in the
sense of the
code. An electronic work cannot be "published
("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
(again, "published" in the sense of the Code)
included evidence of registration.
But it is only considered "published"
(in the sense of the Code) if the criteria are
> I think that the
meaning of "issued" is actually quite clear, and
electronic publication cannot be rendered valid by adding
> In fact,
nothing before mid-2012 can be, because the archiving
> not be
made on ZooBank before then. There is published discussion
> 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
obtainable on January 1 2012 (regardless of whether it was
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
of the Code? Of the 17 instances of
the word "issue" or "issued" in Art.
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
> the date on which all requirements were
fulfilled[unquote]. But that is
> problem! How can you tell on what date a
missing LSID was added to a PDF
> the publisher doesn't come clean and
state that date?
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
We don't even seem to have consensus on that yet.
we get consensus on that, then we next
have to figure out how we determine
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
We don't have the same problem with dating paper
publications as we have
> electronic ones, as I'm sure that your
colleague Neal can explain to you.
> been to a library? Journal issues in
libraries have accession date stamps
> librarians have no reason to falsify
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
PDF was first obtainable than it is to figure out when a
publication was first obtainable.
> The original idea behind
> electronic publications was
to make such archives the electronic
but, because Zootaxa output is faster than archiving can
requirement got watered down to a mere statement of intent
That's pretty weird to hear you say that,
given that Zhi-Qiang was a very
proponent of archiving requirements during the discussion.
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
really long emails. Suffice it to say that we would have
MUCH bigger mess than we have now.
More information about the Taxacom