[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Scott Thomson scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 05:11:00 CST 2017


I wish dates were given as not only a complete date, but that this date
reflects the date that the publication meets the code and is hence valid
from that perspective. But if it is not I have no real issue with them
being corrected to to either the end of the month of the month/year
combination or end of year in a year only. If this messes up the status of
their nomenclatural acts with respect to priority then they should have
given a full and accurate date.

Cheers Scott

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Skype Number: +55 (11) 3280 0144
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095


More information about the Taxacom mailing list