[Taxacom] Electronic publication
l.raty at skynet.be
Wed Jan 11 10:12:52 CST 2017
On 01/10/2017 09:09 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> Also, there is nothing in the existing Code that requires the date
> stated within the work itself to be accurate.
As I understand it, the reasonning is as follows. I still have to seen
an argument that would convincingly dismantle it, and currently hold it
as a strictly legalistic application of the text (i.e., no clear room
for interpretation or doubt). I'd be interested to know what, if
anything, makes it incorrect.
1) 'Date of publication' is defined in the Glossary;
2) Art. 89.1 requires that an expression defined in the Glossary, for
ALL Code purposes (not 'just' for purposes of priority), be understood
in the meaning of that Glossary definition;
3) for an electronic work, Art. 8.5.2 requires that 'the date of
publication' be stated in the work itself for it to be considered published.
"The date of publication [...] is the date indicated in the glossary
definition, and may not agree with the stated date" is true for printed
works, where (3) doesn't apply.
But, for electronic works, this is not possible: Art. 89.1 requires that
'the date of publication', which Art. 8.5.2 requires to be stated in the
work, be the date indicated in the Glossary definition. As a
consequence, if the stated date does not agree with the date indicated
in the Glossary definition, Art. 8.5.2 cannot be met, and the work can
indeed not be considered published.
On 01/10/2017 03:41 PM, Thomas Pape wrote:
> The analogy runs like this:
> If "An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a
> work unavailable" (Art. 188.8.131.52), then why should an error in giving
> the date make a work unavailable?
The actual provision (Art. 184.108.40.206) adds a quite serious condition to
the work not being made 'unavailable' (read: unpublished) -- "provided
that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in
the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was
The consequences of these two errors in terms of fulfilment of the
respective requirements would be quite different, which makes the
1) "8.5.2. state the date of publication in the work itself"
=> an error resulting in a stated date that is not 'the date of
publication' means this requirement is clearly not met.
2) "8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological
Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the
work itself that such registration has occurred."
=> *PROVIDED THAT* "the work can be unambiguously associated with a
record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature
before the work was published", an error in stating the evidence of
registration would nevertheless leave enough evidence in the work to
establish that the registration has occurred. Thus this error would not
at all clearly result in the main requirement not being met.
More information about the Taxacom