[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Laurent Raty]

On 01/09/2015 02:21 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> However, if an electronic work fails to
> fulfill the requirements of the Code, then it is not "published" in the
> sense of the code.  An electronic work cannot be "published without
> registration" ("published" in the sense of the Code), therefore there is no
> need to go back in time.

Agreed on principle, but the Code examples are problematic on this 
point. Eg.:

"An author, in preparing a manuscript for publication, states that day’s 
date for the registration date, intending to register it later that day 
but forgetting to do so. The author discovers the omission after the 
work is published and immediately registers it; because registration 
occurred after publication, the work is not available."

Thus, in the Amendment itself, "published" is used in a sense that is 
not that of the Code, and there is an explicit reference to a work 
"published without registration"... (Not to mention the fact that 
availability popping up in the Code at this point is puzzling, to say 
the least.) Should this have read "The author discovers the omission 
after the work is *issued* and immediately registers it; because 
registration occurred after *issuance*, the work is not *published*"?


 > From the perspective of the Code, it is only
> published when all criteria are met.  It may have been obtainable in
> pre-published form (again, "published" in the sense of the Code) without
> included evidence of registration.  But it is only considered "published"
> (in the sense of the Code) if the criteria are met.

Note, in your own text: "it is only published WHEN all criteria are 
met", vs. "it is only considered "published" [...] IF the criteria are 
met." These are two different things.

If I base myself on the Glossary definition of "date of publication", 
"when" a work was published would appear to be fixed *only* by the time 
when copies "became available by purchase or free distribution". This 
would then imply that dealing with the last ZooBank requirements only 
fulfills the "if" condition. IOW, this makes the work published on the 
day it was offered for distribution, retroactively.

(And in fact, to me, this makes sense. You just can't ask a publisher to 
be able to add to a file, in advance, a "date of publication" that would 
be the date on which the author will complete a ZooBank registration. 
The only "date of publication" that you can reasonably expect to find in 
the work, is the date when it is made available for download.)


I may be the only one, but I keep having a problem with this Amendment 
having updated only the English text. If the French text was not 
modified, it arguably still forbids e-publication entirely, and it is 
equal in force to the English text. Or did I mis something?

Cheers,
Laurent -