[Taxacom] Nomenclature of PDF documents

[Stuart Fullerton]

oh garsh

it would be really keen if i thought that i could still be alive in 15 
years  to see if you all are correct or if i could say "i told you so"

what the problem is is that i do not have unlimited time and funds.  
what ever tends to get done around the bug closet is what i can get 
done. the money that is spent on pins, drawers, trips, labels, computer 
widgets of the hour, and the grad student (coleoptera) that works for me 
30 hours all gets paid out of my personal check book.

i have discovered that the current grad student, like the past ones, 
would prefer to keep their jobs and get out of doors and look at insects 
(we all enjoyed that at one time -think)   than my spending those 
dollars on  the latest and greatest computer effort.
that is not to say that what you do and are doing is not good.  but so 
many are trying it seems to reinvent the same wheel that someone else is 
already working on and  there is still so much simple alpha taxonomy (is 
that the correct term) that needs doing.

there are times that i need to take my head out of the clouds and keep 
my feet on the ground.  as a curmudgeon i can do that.

by the way - doug did you have any comments on the use of cyfluthrin in 
collections? you may have answered it a week or so ago but about that 
time the university computer system crashed and we all lost lots of 
"good stuff"

anyway

back to taxa changes in the computer data base - so very very time 
consumptive. but about all i can do these days as i can not longer get 
out and about much.

cheers!    best wishes to you all.

rof


Doug Yanega wrote:

>Fabio Moretzsohn wrote:
>
>  
>
>>We hear the argument of the advantages of electronic publications and
>>that thousand of identical copies are saved in computers across the
>>world. But how do you reconcile files with potentially different names
>>and dates? I typically rename PDFs I download or create as a short
>>citation, with the name of the first author(s), date, and a short title
>>that makes sense to me. However, even if I saved the document with the
>>same name as downloaded from a journal, when I save it to my computer
>>the date that shows is the date it was saved; the date it was originally
>>created may be stored somewhere, but it is not what most people see.
>>    
>>
>
>This is precisely why a single, central repository is needed. We want 
>to be able to IGNORE all those thousands of individual copies (not 
>that their existence is not of potential value), and their 
>idiosyncratic file names. The system works best with just ONE 
>authoritative unalterable copy in a proper archive that is linked 
>with all the necessary metadata to make sure that if someone wants to 
>find a PDF (or XML doc, or whatever form the archive takes) of paper 
>X, then that archive should be the top Google hit, or near the top. 
>Then we can avoid the whole issue of "document nomenclature".
>
>This relates to what self-proclaimed "luddite" Stuart Fulleron wrote:
>
>  
>
>>ah yes - and in 15 years all this will be outdated and we will start all
>>over again with the latest and newest and "forever" system that will not
>>work on anything some of us will still have at that time.  meanwhile i
>>find that a good reprint collection and an old fashioned 3 x 5 card
>>    
>>
>system works just fine for my needs.
>
>This is the difference between researchers keeping software and files 
>ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and having a permanent central repository. You 
>would never, ever, need your index cards again if you were no longer 
>personally the custodian of the *data* on those cards. If someone 
>else keeps the data safe and accessible, then it no longer matters 
>what computer you own, what software you install, or how outdated 
>anything you personally use happens to be: if you have a functional 
>browser, then the data is there whenever you want it, be it 15 years 
>from now or 150. Having a permanent central repository is the only 
>practical way to AVOID things becoming outdated. Realistically, the 
>only "tricky" aspect is that a central repository will have only a 
>limited set of data formats it can accept or produce; if someone 
>stores data on their personal computer in some form that is 
>absolutely impossible to translate into a standard form, then it may 
>never be possible to archive it. All the more reason for people to 
>STOP keeping important work on their own computers.
>
>Peace,
>  
>


-- 
Stuart M Fullerton ROF, Research Associate in charge of Arthropod
Collections (UCFC), Dept. of Biology, University of Central Florida, PO
Box 162368, Orlando, Florida, 32816-2368, USA. stuartf at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
(407) 823-6540 (no voice mail) <http://biology.cos.ucf.edu/bugs/>