[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Damien HINSINGER hin175 at free.fr
Wed Jan 27 20:27:24 CST 2016


It doesn’t work !

Pictures of children playing to football will elicit sexual arousal responses in at least some people.
But I’m sure we all agree that your (and our) family photo album is not a pedophile porn collection.

I don’t encourage you to go and watch some porn, but the mankind imagination is unlimited in what can "elicit sexual arousal responses » at least in some people...

Damien 



> Le 28 janv. 2016 à 06:33, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> a écrit :
> 
>> In particular, trying to define "Metadata" is like trying to define pornography<
> 
> Pornography = representations (verbal, visual, auditory, etc.) of a kind which elicit sexual arousal responses in at least some people.
> 
> Now that wasn't so hard (I mean difficult!) was it? It possibly makes some ferrari commercials count as pornography, but perhaps they are to some people!
> 
> Anyway, the point is that it is not difficult to come up with a reasonably solid definition of metadata for our purposes: 
> 
> Metadata = information added by publishers (not authors) to a submitted manuscript. Two documents which differ only in metadata are, by definition, the same version of the publication. Ergo, what is or is not a final version has nothing to do with metadata.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 28/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> 
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
> To: "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>, "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
> Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 11:11 AM
> 
> I agree in the sense that
> we are primarily limited by English language.  It's
> easy to suggest that a couple of sentences could provide
> clarity on the "Metadata issue". What's not so
> easy is crafting those sentences in a way that does not
> introduce even more ambiguities.  In particular, trying to
> define "Metadata" is like trying to define
> pornography*.  We all know it when we see it, but... to
> capture an unambiguous definition is extremely elusive.
> I've worked in informatics circles for decades, and
> believe me when I say there is no clear definition for what
> it actually means (for a tiny taste, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata)
> 
> Consider that the Amendment
> for electronic publication underwent nearly four years of
> review, and massive amounts of discussion both within the
> Commission and among the public.  It is, perhaps, the most
> scrutinized and carefully word-smithed part of the Code as
> it currently exists.  Yet, we have these seemingly endless
> discussions about parsing its exact meaning.  The Code as a
> whole is full of similar (and worse) ambiguities, despite
> four editions and nearly a century of revisions and careful
> scrutiny.
> 
> I believe the
> Commission should be much more proactive in issuing
> Declarations, and I believe these should be immediately
> reflected in the online edition of the Code (which is the
> version I now consult routinely).  In the old days, we all
> used to keep our dogged-eared print copy of the Code full of
> notes and clarifications and whatnot to help us come to
> consensus on deriving meaning from the words as printed on
> the pages.  Perhaps part of the way forward for the ICZN is
> to make the online version of the Code itself a more
> reliable document, containing not just all of the Amendment
> text, but also relevant Declarations (including specific
> examples), and perhaps even an archived discussion forum
> related to specific articles.  Some of that already exists
> on the 5th Edition Wiki.
> 
> In
> any case, one thing we ALL probably agree on is that there
> is an unacceptably high level of confusion and ambiguity
> concerning not so much the exact wording of the Code, but
> how best to interpret those words in the context of a highly
> heterogeneous reality.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> *With apologies to former U.S. Supreme Court
> Justice Potter Stewart.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>> Of Frank T. Krell
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:38
> AM
>> To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> Laurent Raty; John
>> Noyes
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
> two names online published - one
>> new
> species
>> 
>> 
> Stephen,
>> We are in agreement in all
> points here. Several Commissioners are already
>> bothered, and we will see if the whole
> Commission can agree (at least in
>> 
> majority) to proceed in this direction. It might well do. I
> think most already
>> agreed that some
> sort of action and clarification is necessary.
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Dr Frank T. Krell
>> Curator of Entomology
>> 
> Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological
> Nomenclature Chair,
>> ICZN ZooBank
> Committee Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature
>> & Science
>> 2001
> Colorado Boulevard
>> Denver, CO
> 80205-5798 USA
>> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>> Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
>> Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
>> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
>> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>> 
>> Test your powers of
> observation in The International Exhibition of Sherlock
>> Holmes, open until January 31. And prepare
> your palate for Chocolate: The
>> 
> Exhibition, opening February 12.
>> 
>> The Denver Museum of Nature & Science
> salutes the citizens of metro
>> Denver
> for helping fund arts, culture and science through their
> support of the
>> Scientific and Cultural
> Facilities District (SCFD).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
>> Of Stephen Thorpe
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 1:25
> PM
>> To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>;
> John
>> Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
> two names online published - one
>> new
> species
>> 
>> Hi
> John,
>> 
>>> It is
> still a big mess and nothing is clear<
>> 
>> On that we agree
> (except, of course, that it isn't a mess and nothing
> is
>> unclear if we are talking about the
> Zootaxa publishing model).
>> 
>>> If we have a code of zoological
> nomenclature we must follow what it
>> 
>> says not what someone says it is supposed to say or
> should say<
>> 
>> On
> this I can't quite agree, for the following reason:
> language is inherently
>> vague and
> ambiguous. You have already said that "nothing is
> clear", and I
>> have agreed.
> Therefore one cannot simply follow what the Code
> "says"
>> ('states'
> actually, since it cannot speak!), because it doesn't
> make precise and
>> unambiguous
> prescriptions which can be followed in a well defined
> manner.
>> Therefore we do need to be
> pragmatic, though perhaps not quite so "stick it
>> anywhere liberal" as Frank Krell
> suggests! Your insistence that an
>> 
> unpaginated online first version be denied availability is
> simply
>> counterproductive and causes
> more problems than it solves.
>> 
>> Of course, what we actually need is a
> simple official declaration by the ICZN
>> 
> (perhaps just a couple of sentences) to the effect that
> metadata doesn't
>> matter and
> clarifying that online first versions are to be considered
> available
>> (provided that they are
> otherwise fully Code compliant). But can the ICZN be
>> bothered?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Stephen
>> 
>> 
> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 27/1/16, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>> 
>>  Subject:
> RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published
> -
>> one new species
>>  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
>> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
>> "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
>>  Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016,
> 10:28 PM
>> 
>>  Hi
> Stephen,
>> 
>>  I hate
> to bring this up again
>>  but there a
> good number of us (probably the majority of my  colleagues
> -
>> certainly all the ones that I have
> talked to)  do not agree that an early view
>> version is to be considered  available if
> it differs in any way (including
>> 
> metadata) from  the final published version. The fact that
> some of the most
>> vociferous of you say
> that metadata does not matter is  neither here nor
>> there. It is still a big mess and
> nothing  is clear. If we have a code of
>> zoological nomenclature we  must follow
> what it says not what someone
>> says it
> is  supposed to say or should say. Hopefully these problems
> can  be
>> ironed out satisfactorily and
> will ultimately not have  any serious impact on
>> nomenclature, especially priority.
>> 
>>  John
>> 
>>  John Noyes
>>  Scientific
>> 
> Associate
>>  Department of Life
> Sciences
>>  Natural History Museum
>>  Cromwell
>>  Road
>>  South Kensington
>> 
> London
>>  SW7 5BD
>> 
> UK
>>  jsn at nhm.ac.uk
>>  Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
>>  Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>> 
>>  Universal
> Chalcidoidea Database (everything you  wanted to know
> about
>> chalcidoids and more):
>>  www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>> 
>> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>>  On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
>>  Sent: 26 January
>> 
> 2016 20:57
>>  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>>  Laurent Raty
>> 
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
>>  Important note
> Re: two names online published - one new  species
>> 
>>  Laurent,
>> 
>>  Once again you are
> mistaken,
>>  but that doesn't
> reflect badly on you, it reflects badly  on the the
> almost
>> bewilderingly confusing way that
> the Code  has been written.
>> 
>>  As long
>>  as the
> early view file is considered to be the version of  record
> (with
>> preregistration on ZooBank truly
> indicated  within), all that matters is that
>> the PDF file for it  contains something
> which can be reasonably interpreted as
>> 
> a  date of publication. If the subsequent print edition
> is  different in any
>> regard, this is
> irrelevant.
>> 
>>  So,
> in your example a
>>  statement
> "Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in  the online
> edition contains
>> a date of
> publication  (incompletely specified as 2015), so, all
> other things
>> being  equal, is Code
> compliant. It is irrelevant what happens  after that.
>> What is technically made available is the
> online  first PDF (which probably
>> 
> never gets archived, but actual  archiving isn't
> actually a Code requirement!)
>> 
>>  It is all a big mess but a few
>>  things are clear enough.
>> 
>>  Cheers,
>> 
>>  Stephen
>> 
>> 
> --------------------------------------------
>>  On Wed, 27/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>   Subject: Re:
>>  [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names
> online published -  one new
>> species
>>   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>   Received: Wednesday, 27
> January, 2016, 9:30  AM
>> 
>>   Stephen,
>> 
> 
>>   When an early view
> file
>>  issued
>>   in 2015 gets included in a
> 2016
>>  volumes,  an  original
> statement "Systematic  Entomology (2015), DOI:
>> 
>> 
>>  10.1111/syen.#####" (as in the
>> 
>> 
> yet-to-be-published file here:
>>   http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12157/epdf
>>   ) is
>>   *changed* into a
>>  statement
>>   "Systematic
> Entomology
>>  (2016), 41,
> ##-##."
>>   (as in this
> file:
>> 
>>   http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12142/epdf
>>   , which is
>>   registered in
>>  ZooBank as
>>   being published on 12 Aug
> 2015:
>> 
>>   http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoo
>> 
>> 
> bank.org:pub:38D703ED-127A-4DB0-8153-8D78AF4AC212
>>   ).
>> 
>>   The year
>>  that appears in
>>   this statement in the
> final
>>  file (the only one  that
> remains) is *not*, nor is even
>> 
> *intended*  to be, the year of  publication of the pdf 
> file that we are trying
>> here to make 
> "published".
>> 
>>   It
>>  is
> the year of publication of the print  run.
>> 
>>   And of
> nothing
>>   else.
>> 
>> 
>>  Cheers, Laurent -
>> 
> 
>> 
>>   On
> 01/26/2016 08:43 PM,
>> 
>>  Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> Laurent,
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
> You
>>   are contrasting
> "in the work
>>  itself" with 
> "metadata", but this  >
>> 
> isnot  necessarily so. Remember that the concept of 
> "metadata", as used  >
>> 
> here,  didn't  exist when the Amendment was drafted.
> Zhang  just  >
>> subsequently pulled
> it out of a  hat in order to try to  save the  > 
> Amendment
>> from objections relating to 
> "preliminary  versions". Anyway, if  > you
>> contrast  "in the work itself"
> instead with  "just on  the publisher's  >
> web
>> page for  the  article, or
> elsewhere", then "Systematic  Entomology  >
> (2016),
>> 41, 287–297"
>>   is "in the work
> itself". This seems
>>  like a 
>> reasonable and pragmatic interpretation to  make,
> which avoids
>> this  > particular 
> problem.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> Stephen
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
>>   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 29 years of
>>   Taxacom in 2016.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
>>  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 29
> years of
>>  Taxacom in 2016.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> Channeling
> Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> Channeling
> Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list