[Taxacom] I vote for stone tablets, and no, I do not think there should be open communication between ICBN and ICZN. We can re-examine the question in 2011. Dan

[Daniel Janzen]

>From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>To: "'Karen Wilson'" <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>,
>         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:28:28 -1000
>Organization: Bishop Museum
>Thread-Index: AcnaPs4//QLDn88bTi6LGnhNKGumFgAKEbugAASdwIA=
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Darwinius and electronic publication yet again
>List-Id: Biological Systematics Discussion List <taxacom.mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>,
>	<mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom>
>List-Post: <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>List-Help: <mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>,
>	<mailto:taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>  > Another posting on TAXACOM says that Ellinor Michel of ICZN
>>  has advised that  'numerous identical and durable' printed
>>  copies are needed for a publication to be acceptable currently.
>>
>>  Defining the middle term should be easy, but 'numerous' =
>>  ?how many: >2? >3? an arbitrary number such as 5 or 10?   - 
>>  and  'durable' = what?
>>  In this context, CDs are scarcely durable (in archival/
>>  scholarly library terms) given that their projected life span
>>  is measured in decades not centuries.
>
>These are excellent questions, and ones that the ICZN Commissioners have
>been wrestling with themselves for years now.
>
>As for "numerous", there seems to be a general (though reluctant)
>acknolwegement that "numerous", strictly speaking, means "more than one" (Oy
>vey!)  However, on the "recommendation" (i.e., not Code-compliance) side of
>things, it seems like "50" has been bounced around as a reasonable number.
>
>There is some indirect justification for going with "at least 5", as this is
>stipulated in Article 8.6 (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=8),
>but you'd be hard-pressed to get a majority of Commissioners to see this
>indirect inference as constituting a legitimate definition of "numerous".
>
>I think the word "durable" simply implies physical copies (as opposed to
>"electronic signals", as used in Art. 9.8).  Most people assume it applies
>to CD-ROMs, but this really could apply to any physical device used to
>disseminate information (stone tablets, stamped metal sheets, drafting
>velum, CD-ROM's, memory sticks, iPods, etc.).
>
>We would all like to believe that "durable" also implies "capable of
>withstanding the ravages of time", etc. -- but, alas, this word is also
>absent from the glossary.
>
>There is another word that needs definition: "obtainable" (Arts. 8.1.2 &
>8.1.3).  Believe it or not, this one actually is the one most open to
>interpretation (at least from my perspective).
>
>>  I am not aware,
>>  however, of any electronic archiving system that can
>>  guarantee longevity over centuries not decades for even a
>>  commercially published online journal - if anyone knows of
>>  one, I'd be interested to hear of it.
>
>Obviously, no such system can purport to "guarantee" such longevity for
>electronic documents.  But if I were a betting man (and I'm not), I'd be
>looking at roughly even odds for the obtainability of the PLoS PDF for the
>description of Darwinius 250 years from now, vs. original copies of Linnaeus
>1758 (or, for you, Linnaeus 1753) today.  Actually, it's not a realistic
>comparison, because the PDF will almost certainly either be absolutely
>unobtainable (collapse of human civilization, disappearance of affordable
>energy, absence of any human being even remotely interested in biology,
>etc., etc.) or utterly ubiquitous and instantanously accessible (think:
>"Google in 250 years").  I find it hard to imagine some middle ground
>between those two extremes, two and a half centuries hence.
>
>>  For the botanists on TAXACOM: All these aspects will be
>>  discussed in the ICBN context by the Special Committe on
>>  Electronic Publication over the next year, and
>>  recommendations on possible amendments to the ICBN will be
>>  made to the next International Botanical Congress to be held
>>  in Melbourne in July 2011.
>
>One wonders whether there should be established and maintained an open
>dialog between those looking to accommodate electronic publications under
>ICBN, and those addressing the same issues under ICZN.
>
>Brian Tindall (or anyone else with insights): Is IJSEM contemplating going
>all-electronic?  Is this something you folks are contemplating in the
>context of the Bacteriological Code?
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either 
>of these methods:
>
>(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
>site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here