[Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Sat Nov 25 16:19:52 CST 2006
Thanks, Rich!
Dick J
Richard Jensen
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Date: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
>
> I had replied to Dick Jensen's email yesterday, but failed to
> include the
> Taxacom address. I re-sent my post to the list just now, but see
> that Dick
> replied to me only. Based on the "et al.", I'm assuming Dick also
> intendedhis note to go to the list, appended below.
>
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rjensen at saintmarys.edu [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:26 AM
> > To: Richard Pyle
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
> >
> > Rich, et al.,
> >
> > I thought my use of potential was obvious; apparently not.
> > All materials, but let's stick to paper and electronic for
> > this discussion, have the potential to be lost, forgotten,
> > accidentally or deliberatly destroyed. For electronic files,
> > the potential for that to happen is greater than for paper
> > copy. Why? If there are a thousand paper copies of a
> > journal distributed to individuals and libraries around the
> > world, then it is extremely unlikely that anything could
> > cause complete loss of all copies simultaneously. However,
> > depending on the form in which electronic copies are stored,
> > a massive electronic "storm" could destroy all copies in any
> > single location and, if deliberatley carried out (as in a
> > war), could eliminate all copies in a variety of locations.
> >
> > Yes, you could immediatly send several thousand copies of
> > your reprint to those of us on various list serves. How many
> > of us would save the copy we received? And, how many of us
> > are at institutions that will permanently archive our
> > electronic holdings? How many copies would be saved in a
> > semi-permanent electronic format? Is there a truly permanent
> > electronic format? I have hundreds of 5.25 inch and 3.5 inch
> > floppies with data. I can still read all of these, but
> > that's only because I have deliberately saved the appropriate
> > drives and computers. This tecnology is on the way out and
> > once these drives are no longer available, these electronic
> > "archives" become useless.
> >
> > Experience tells me that most of us do not keep moving old
> > lectronic files to new systems. This is where potential
> > comes into play - if proper archiving, backing up, and
> > upgrading don't occur, then it matters not how many
> > electronic copies are buried in the dust bins of my or my
> > library's collections.
> >
> > I suspect that eventually memory will become so cheap and
> > plentiful that everything in the Library of Congress will be
> > able to be stored on a single memory device; but that's not
> > possible now (as far as I know).
> >
> > And, of course, archivers like JSTOR are making paper
> > obsolete. But are we yet at a point where we want to put all
> > of our eggs in a single basket? I don't think so.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dick J
> >
> > Richard Jensen
> > Department of Biology
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > Date: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:01 pm
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
> >
> > >
> > > Two great threads right now, about both of which I wish to
> comment
> > > moreextensively than I now have time for. Perhaps later in the
> > > weekend. But just a quick comment below.
> > >
> > > Dick Jensen wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I see it, when a publishing company expires, its
> > product does not
> > > > automatically disappear. I assume many subscribers
> (especially
> > > > libraries) have hardcopy on file. However, when an on-line
> > > > publisher expires, there is the *potential* for everyting to
> > > > disappear with it. Electronic-only publication is more
> likely to
> > > > result in loss of original sources than is hardcopy publication.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how you are defining the word "potential" here;
> but in
> > > terms of how publication dissemination actually works, I
> > disagree with
> > > your conclusion above. Case in point: the demise of the
> > > Phyloinformatics.orgwebsite/publisher by no means caused the
> all
> > > digital copies of the PDF file of my Taxonomer article that
> was
> > > published therein to "automatically disapper" any more than
> > would be
> > > the case for a paper-based article.
> > > Besides the (at least) three copies that have already been
> > pointed out
> > > as existing on the web.archive.org website, I know of at least
> two
> > > other copies freely available online:
> > >
> > > http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb/pdf/1080673318.pdf
> > > http://taxondata.org/referencias/pdf/857.pdf
> > >
> > > Five may not seem like a lot, but these are only the copies
> > that I can
> > > acquire for free in less than a minute of my time (that I
> happen to
> > > know about). It's infinitely larger than the number of
> > copes of *any*
> > > paper-based publication that I can acquire a paper copy of
> > as quickly
> > > and easily (and inexpensively).
> > >
> > > I have no idea how many copies of that file exist on various
> hard
> > > drivesaround the world, but I would like to think that
> > there are many
> > > more than five. Perhaps they are not quite as easily
> > accessible as the
> > > five onlinecopies, but most of them are probably much
> > easier to gain
> > > access to than the average paper-based publication (e.g.,
> > an email to
> > > Taxacom or one of the TDWG lists would likely yield multiple
> > > affirmative responses). The same is likely true of almost
> > every other
> > > article published originally in electronicform.
> > >
> > > Moreover, on the theme of "potential" -- the potential to make
> and
> > > distribute multiple electronic copies of a PDF file
> > *vastly* exceeds
> > > that of a paper-based article. If I had merely attached a
> > PDF copy of
> > > the aforementioned phyloinformatics artcle to this message
> (modesty
> > > forbids), I would have almost instantly created hundreds of
> copies
> > > distributed all over the planet (first in email server
> > inboxes, then
> > > on local hard drives of Taxacom subscribers). Imagine how
> > much more
> > > expensive and time consuming it would have been to
> > distribute a paper
> > > copy of the same article to everysingle Taxacom subscriber....
> > >
> > > The point is, if we are to invoke "potential", then I believe
> it's
> > > mucheasier to make the case that electronic publications
> > have a VASTLY
> > > greater potential for longevity (permanency) of access than
> > > paper-based pubications.
> > > Unfortunately, we're not even close to realizing that
> > potential yet.
> > > I predict that within the next couple of decades, that
> > potential will
> > > be much better realized.
> > >
> > > Having spent non-trivial amounts of time thinking about
> > this issues,
> > > I've found MANY reasons why electronic-based publication
> > can increase
> > > the potential of both distribution and permanency over paper-
> based
> > > publications.But I have yet to identify more than one drawback
> to
> > > electronic publication that cannot be very easily and
> > cheaply solved
> > > in the near-term future. That one drawback is the need for a
> > > software-equipped electronic device to translate a series of
> binary
> > > bits into something that can be interpreted by human eyes.
> > However, I
> > > think it's safe to say that there are more suchelectronic
> > devices with
> > > appropriate software in existence today (as well as the
> forseeable
> > > future) than there are copies of almost any paper-based
> publication.> >
> > > More on the two threads to follow later...
> > >
> > > Aloha,
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> > > Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences and Associate
> > Zoologist in
> > > Ichthyology Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
> > > 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> > > Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> > > email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > > http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list