[Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal

Sun Nov 26 16:36:05 CST 2006

"The reason that paper has worked so well for so long "

I would argue, that's not true at all. It is actually the reason, why we do
not have a list of all the species of the world. There are thousands of
publications nobody knows of, because they have been published in low
numbers in "obscure" (places where the mainstream doesn't live), and we
still struggle to get them together.

If all publications are online, and even only online, we have google who
would find them. I am not specially fund of google and would use anything
better if available, but they just happen to do a better job than anything
else.

If we could come up with some mark up for taxonomic details to complement
publishers structural mark-up (eg taxonx, taxmlit), we could not only have a
copy of the publications in a non-proprietary form, but could also do much
more refined searches. If we would have ark-ive.org we would be there.

If we all would subsribe a mandate for open access publishing using self
archiving, or proper open access publication, than all we publish could be
found. This would only be the logic step in the registration, such as the
one in the zoological world.

Tools are already out there to find and harvest biological names, such as
UBIO's tools.

And if you think that a bit further, a name could only become valid, if a
web search engine would have automatically discovered the name, either
because its deposition in ark-ive.org or through self archive or open
access, we would have what we want, a complete, continually updated
catalogue of the worlds species..

Donat Agosti

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:24 PM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: 'Taxacom'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal

I suspect that Rich's comment (we're arguing about different time scales) is
close to the heart of the matter.  But, I still see potential for a problem.

The reason that paper has worked so well for so long is that technology did
not rapidly outrun the usefulness of the medium.  I don't necessarily buy
into the "we just need time to mature as users of digital media" argument
(as Rich put it, "Digital electronic  computers have been around far less
than a century, and in the hands of us users only for a couple of decades").
Technology is not going to wait for us to become better stewards of digital
materials - the pace is too fast.  How long did paper tape last?  How long
did punch cards last?  I also have a hundred pounds of punch cards that can
no longer be read because no one has access to a fully functional card
reader.  One thing that is not happening with the digital revolution is
backward compatibility.  As technological capabilities improve, the replaced
technologies die quickly and, unless someone has taken time (and it is a lot
of time) to move everything forward, access may be lost forever.  

I, too, see a day when everything that is printed will exist in some digital
form that virtually everyone can access from anywhere.  But I am skeptical
about how fast that day is coming.  Experience has taught me to be very
careful about relying on the purveyors of software and hardware to do
anything with my best interests in mind.  Remember CP/M?  Remember Beta-max?
Hard lessons were learned and I, for one, hesitate to count on free-market
policies to work to the best advantage of the consumers.

Am I being too cautious, am I just refusing to accept the envitable, or am I
being overly pessimistic?

Cheers,

Dick

Richard Jensen
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal

> 
> Dick Jensen wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well....yes and no.  In the paradigm that all copies of an electronic
> document are stored in one location, then yes, that location could be
> destroyed.  The exact same thing is true in the case where all 
> copies of a
> paper document are stored in one location.  The question is, to 
> what extent
> is this scenario (i.e., all copies of a document stored in one 
> location)more likely to be true for electronic publication, than 
> for paper
> publication.  I would have to wager "not very". It wouldn't really be
> "publication" if the opportunity to download copies (either for 
> free or at a
> price) wasn't available.
> 
> I conceed that there are probably fewer distributed copies of an 
> averagedigitially published document than an average paper-based 
> publication,simply because the act of paper-based publication is 
> so expensive that it
> only makes economic sense in the paradigm that hundreds or 
> thousands of
> copies are simultaneously generated.  Ironically, it is the low 
> cost and
> ease with which digital publications can be copied and distributed 
> that*allows* them to exist in lower numbers.  But this is where 
> "potential"clearly favors the digital over the paper.  Electronic 
> publication is in its
> infancy still, so the potential hasn't come close to being 
> realized.  But
> given that most or all of the technology already exists to relaize the
> potential, now it's just an issue of establishing standards and 
> implementingprotocols. 
>  
> > 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?  
> 
> I suspect the same number that would save our paper reprints that 
> we mail
> out.
> 
> > And, how many of us 
> > are at institutions that will permanently archive our 
> > electronic holdings? 
> 
> If there is a discrepancy between paper and electronic 
> publications in this
> regard, I am certain it is a temporary condition while 
> institutions learn
> how to archive digital documents.
> 
> > How many copies would be saved in a 
> > semi-permanent electronic format?  Is there a truly permanent 
> > electronic format?  
> 
> Only to the extent that there is a truly permanent paper format.  
> Yes, I
> agree that the average hard drive does not out-last the average paper
> document.  But the paper document gradually degrades over time, 
> whereas*precisely identical* copies of any digital document can be 
> forwarded into
> perpetuity, provided someone is willing to forward it.  As Bryan 
> Heidornpointed out in his post, paper-based documents exist across 
> long periods of
> time only because people (libraries) make the effort to care for 
> them.  And
> I can guarantee you that the cost of copying a digital document 
> from an old
> hard drive to a new hard drive once every five years is a LOT less 
> than the
> time, enegery, and resources that go into preserving a paper 
> document for
> the same period of time.  Once again, potential favors the digital 
> document.
> > 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.
> 
> But why haven't you copied these documents to a modern hard drive?????
> 
> > 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.
> 
> And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement.  I imagine that 
> durungthe first century of the existence of papyrus, the vast 
> majority of users
> thereof didn't really understand what was necessary to ensure long-
> termpersistence of their scribed documents.  Digital electronic 
> computers have
> been around far less than a century, and in the hands of us users 
> only for a
> couple of decades.  I don't think it's fair to judge the potential for
> persistence of digital vs. paper documents based on a comparison of
> centuries-old vs. decades-old technology.  And I am certain it 
> will not
> require centuries for us to establish standard protocols for the 
> persistenceof digital documents. I doubt it will be more than 
> decade or two, and
> perhaps much less.  Maybe our only disagreement is that we're 
> talking about
> "potential" in different time scales?
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Pretty close, actually.  I can buy several terabytes of storage 
> space for
> less than half of what a 10-MB hard drive used to cost.  This 
> isn't enough
> to hold image files of every page in the Library of Congress, but 
> I bet it's
> enough to hold all of the textual information.
>  
> > 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.
> 
> Though I disagree with the "one basket" perspective, I agree with 
> the notion
> that we're not there yet.  But we are VERY close!
> 
> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom