[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Richard Pyle]

I think that's a bit hyperbolic, Stephen.  These problems were known during
the protracted discussion about the Amendment before it was published.
There is no "perfect" solution, and there really isn't a "good" solution
when you are trying to involve two separate events (registration, and
obtainability of a published work) to establish a single date.  However, the
final wording is, in my opinion, the best balance we could have hoped for
between moving forward with the digital era while respecting the wisdom
gained from 250 years of paper-based publication.

I've always viewed the Amendment as a "trial" period -- a necessary period
of time with limited Code-mandated registration, but without full-blown
commitment -- to allow us to see what actually happens (less in terms of
technology than in terms of how people react to it).  I would say these past
two years have been EXTREMELY helpful in this regard.  If we had tried to
construct a massive registration system in one step (e.g., the 5th Edition),
we would no doubt have had to make some serious Amendments within a couple
of years.  This way, we get to learn what works and what doesn't now, so
when we craft the 5th Edition, we'll be that much wiser. Discussions like
this one are necessary and useful, no matter how tedious they may seem.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 10:06 AM
> To: kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au; Frank.Krell at dmns.org;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; pscranston at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
> 
> So, what you are saying, in effect, Rich, is that we currently lack a well
defined
> system for electronically published zoological nomenclature, and will need
to
> radically overhaul the Code in order to achieve such a system! Until then,
> whenever it may come, we must deal with taxonomic names with no defined
> priority. That's "interesting"! We can be confident that the Magnolia
Press
> publishing model will pass all future developments intact, and, after all,
who
> really cares about other publishers and their various publishing models
...
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/1/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
>  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au, Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com
>  Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 9:44 PM
> 
>  All,
> 
>  Alas, my eyes began to water and the eyelids began to droop  while trying
to
> read through this thread.  I'm not sure  how much has been addressed, and
> what the main points of the  debate are, but the thread does touch on a
couple
> of  "actual" issues (as opposed to violent arm-waving).
> 
>  Issue #1: establishing date of publication for purposes of  priority.
> 
>  Consider the following sequence of events:
> 
>  1. June 1 2014: A journal exposes a PDF for a work  containing the
description
> of a new animal species name  online as an "early view".  It does not
contain a
> ZooBank registration for the work, and the work has not yet  been
registered in
> ZooBank.
>  2. June 5 2014: The work is registered in ZooBank, but the  ZooBank
> registration does not include an ISSN or indication  of an online archive.
The
> publication date in ZooBank is  entered as "2014".
>  3. June 10 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include an  ISSN number
for
> the Journal.
>  4. June 15 2014: A revised version of the PDF, which  includes the
ZooBank
> registration number, is posted online.
>  It declares the publication date (within the PDF) to be June
>  16 2014.
>  5. June 20 2014: The ZooBank record is updated to include  the intended
> archive for the work.
>  6. June 25 2014: The publication date entered in ZooBank  record is
updated as
> June 22 2014.
>  7. June 30 2014: Numerous identical copies of a  paper-printed edition of
the
> work are obtainable.
>  8. January 5 2015: The publisher uploads a copy of the PDF  to the
indicated
> Archive.
> 
>  So.... what is the date of publication (in the sense of the  ICZN Code,
for
> purposes of priority)?
> 
>  June 20 is the earliest date on which all criteria had been  met.
However, some
> have argued that one cannot update a  ZooBank record and thereby make an
> electronic edition  available; therefore the date or publication (in the
sense  of
> the ICZN) should be 30 June (when the paper edition is  published). 
Others
> have argued that the date of  publication for purposes of priority should
be the
> date on  which the first electronic version of the work itself was
obtainable
> (June 15th, in this case), even though the  ZooBank record was later
amended
> to include the requirements  (that is, even though the work was not
available
> from June  15-June 20 due to the missing archive indication in ZooBank,
once
> the ZooBank record is corrected, the date of  publication for purposes of
> priority reverts to the date of  obtainability of the work itself).  Does
the date as
> it  appears on the work itself carry any meaning for purposes of
priority?  The
> Code requires that electronic editions  include the date of publication,
but it's
> not clear whether  the stated date has any more relevance to the date of
> publication in the sense of the ICZN Code than stated dates  of
paper-printed
> works.  Finally, does the date entered  in the ZooBank record have any
bearing
> on the actual date of  publication? Or is it only have meaning after a
> verification  system for ZooBank is in place?
> 
>  A couple points:
>  - There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the  preceding
> paragraph.
>  - Item #8 in the list above is irrelevant.  The Code  does not require
that the
> electronic work actually be  deposited in an Archive; only that the
ZooBank
> record  indicates the intended archive.
>  - All of these problems disappear if we establish a system  whereby
registered
> = available (with traditional  "publication" being an optional, perhaps
> recommended  practice, but not part of the requirements)
> 
>  Issue #2: Homonyms aplenty?
> 
>  When works are published in both electronic and paper  editions, and the
> electronic edition is unambiguously in  compliance with the Code, how much
> difference must there be  in terms of content between the paper edition
and
> the  electronic edition before the two are considered separate
> works?  Addition of page numbers?  Changes in  formatting? Correction of
> typos?  Addition of  substantial text? Change of authorship? Alteration of
the
> spelling of a new name?  Addition (or removal) of a new  name? Changing of
a
> type specimen designation of a new  name?  The works are never "identical"
> because one is  ink on paper, and the other is an electronic binary file.
>  The issue is that there is broad continuum between examples  where we
would
> all agree the two editions are of the "same"
>  work, and examples where we would all agree the two editions  represent
> distinct works.  But we don't have a clear  idea of where along that
continuum
> we would start regarding  the works as different, and the names contained
in
> them as  synonymous homonyms.
> 
>  A couple points:
>  - There are no correct answers to any of my questions in the  preceding
> paragraph.
>  - All of these problems disappear if we establish a system  whereby
registered
> = available.
> 
>  Aloha,
>  Rich
>