[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Thu Jan 12 03:00:51 CST 2017


An e-only work, in order to be considered published, must "state the date of publication in the work itself".
In a Code-context, such a statement (or lack of the same) must necessarily fall under one of the following Code-governed categories (already pointed out by Rich):
--- Date incompletely specified (Article 21.3)
--- Date incorrect (Article 21.4)
--- Range of dates (Article 21.6)
--- Date not specified (Article 21.7)

If only a year is given, it is in my opinion not possible to claim that there is no date specified.
Note that "the date of publication" specified in a work can be a range of dates (see Article 21.6). A date given with only the year can be interpreted as (essentially is) a range of dates encompassing one year.

Laurent mentioned that "if the stated date [in an electronic work] does not agree with the date indicated in the Glossary definition, Art. 8.5.2 cannot be met".
I would say that if the date of publication given is incorrect, it has to be changed according to Art. 21.4. This was the intention when the Amendment was written, and it is in my opinion the way it should be interpreted. This will certainly be clarified in the next version of the Code.

/Thomas Pape


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Laurent Raty
Sent: 11. januar 2017 17:13
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Electronic publication

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 -
_______________________________________________
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


Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list