[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Jan 9 03:46:33 CST 2015
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:24 AM
> 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?
Well, publication means to make public, which can happen
only once (like being born). The Glossary does not contradict
this point of view, although the definition it does give ("The
issuing of a work [...]") is particular nebulous. In common parlance,
issuing is not something that happens at single point in time
("over a period of five years, all enlisted privates were each
issued a pair of boots of this model"), and in itself something
distributed by "print-on-demand" fits well ""as being issued".
In your wide interpretation, all electronic works that were
published before 31 Dec. 2011 became published on 1 Jan
2012, merely because they were not taken offline at that
date (they continue to be issued), provided the other
requirements are met (in other words, in this interpretation
8.5.1 is there just to waste space). The 'botanical' Code
put in an Example (Art. 29 Ex. 3) to make it very explicit
that this line of reasoning is nonsense, and it would be nice
if the zoological Code also added more Examples.
* * *
>> 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 22.214.171.124. 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. 126.96.36.199 was not an accident or an oversight: it was very deliberately
> worded the way it is.
I very carefully did not say that there was a requirement
to deposit anything. However, as you say, 188.8.131.52 clearly
hopes (even expects) that normally something will be
deposited. And for the purposes of nomenclature, it sure
would help if this were the actual work that made the
nomenclatural act available (and not some approximation).
Please also note that I did not say that the Amendment
is going to lead to problems on a large scale, but it leaves
open possiblities for such problems. It would help if a
Recommendation would be added that publishers do
archive this nomenclaturally-important version.
More information about the Taxacom