[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Laurent Raty 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. 8.5.3.3), then why should an error in giving
> the date make a work unavailable?

The actual provision (Art. 8.5.3.3) 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the work not being made 'unavailable' (read: unpublished) -- "provided 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 
published".

The consequences of these two errors in terms of fulfilment of the 
respective requirements would be quite different, which makes the 
analogy questionable.

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.


Cheers,
Laurent -


More information about the Taxacom mailing list