[Taxacom] Nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic versions of taxonomic papers
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 16 16:07:55 CDT 2015
At the end of the day, we, as taxonomists, should be primarily concerned with taxa, and only secondarily concerned with their names (nomenclature). If one tries to treat the Code along the lines of a legal document, or as an algorithm, one will quickly end up tied up in contradictory knots. Therefore, I have adopted an approach whereby if there is a name which clearly is intended to apply to a taxon, then we can and should use it for that taxon, regardless of any minor doubts regarding whether or not the name "really is" Code compliant.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 17/10/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic versions of taxonomic papers
To: "'Roderic Page'" <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
Received: Saturday, 17 October, 2015, 9:17 AM
<rant>
The answer has always been
obvious to me. In the age of the emerging internet (and
yes, it is very-much still emerging -- we've only just
begun to see the changes to information exchange amongst
humans), we need to fundamentally re-think how we establish
nomenclatural availability (at least for as long as we
continue to use Linnean nomenclature).
For 250 years, the practice of taxonomy has
grown in a context where the primary mechanism of
information exchange among humans was ink symbols affixed to
"very thin slices of wood" (as Paul Kirk likes to
say). For more than a hundred years, the Codes of
nomenclature have been framed around that fundamental
foundation (paper-printed works). Now, and in the
near-term future, the primary mechanism of information
exchange is to transmit binary data encoded in standardized
formats (UTF-8, JPEG, PDF, etc.) via the internet. The
Commission had to scramble to accommodate this rapid
paradigm shift in the form of an Amendment to the Code, but
that was really just a temporary band-aid.
For the next edition of the
Code, I sincerely hope we can fundamentally change the way
in which new names are established and anchored to
biological organisms. Specifically, rather than awkwardly
try to force-fit our legacy system (ink-on-paper) into an
electronic form (e.g., PDFs, with arbitrary and artificial
"pages"), we should re-engineer the entire process
in such a way that we EMBRACE the potential for electronic
information exchange and management. The simplest step in
that direction is to de-couple the scientific notion of
"Publication" from the legal process of
nomenclatural availability. In other words:
"registered=available".
The devil is in the details, of course -- and
in this case, it's about what "registered"
actually means. I'm not talking about what ZooBank
currently does. I'm talking about a brave new approach
that re-crafts the rules for nomenclatural availability into
a form that can be translated into pure logical rules that
computer algorithms can rigorously enforce. If done right,
Homonymy can be eliminated entirely, Synonymy can likely be
reduced (and when it exists, much more easily managed), and
we will NEVER AGAIN have to argue about what constitutes a
"published work" in the sense of the Code. This
is just the tip of the iceberg for how we can simultaneously
improve nomenclatural stability AND increase access to
information through embracing the electronic information
paradigm, rather than futzing around the edges of it (as we
do now).
</rant>
Aloha,
Rich
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> Of Roderic Page
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:09 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Cc: John Noyes
>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatural availability of
preliminary electronic
> versions of
taxonomic papers
>
>
Hopefully eBooks (similar to Kindle), HTML, XML will never
be accepted as
> pubs under the Code
because they are dynamic.
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is why some of us
despair at the current state of
>
taxonomy. Do we really wish that some of the more innovative
means of
> publishing (never mind what
will come in the future) are never accepted.
> Never, really?
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
>
Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of
Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College
of
> Medical, Veterinary and Life
Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of
> Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Skype: rdmpage
>
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> Citations:
> http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
>
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 17:48, John Noyes
> <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>>
wrote:
>
> Rod,
>
> What you are talking
about here (E-books etc.) are not publications under
> the ICZN so they are not really relevant.
We are only talking about e-pubs
> that
are accepted under the current Code. Hopefully eBooks
(similar to
> Kindle), HTML, XML will
never be accepted as pubs under the Code because
> they are dynamic.
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific
Associate
> Department of Life
Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South
Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:jsn at nhm.ac.uk>
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal
Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know
about
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids>
>
> From: Roderic Page
[mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk]
> Sent: 16 October 2015 17:40
> To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: Laurent Raty; John Noyes
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatural
availability of preliminary electronic
>
versions of taxonomic papers
>
> Isn’t part of the issue here that we are
applying one notion of locating text
>
(page number) to a situation where the notion of “page”
may be fuzzy at
> best?
>
> Documents such as
web pages or eBooks either don’t have pages, or the
> “page” may change depending on font
size, device screen, etc.
>
> People who develop software to annotate
web pages, eBook pages, etc.
> have
multiple ways of locating bits of text, such as XPaths
[fragments of the
> HTML or XML that may
underly the document], text fragments before and
> after, number of characters into the
document, etc. These work, as anyone
>
highlighting text in the Kindle app or iBooks, or indeed
Google Docs or Word
> will attest.
>
> The nature of
“publication" has changed, so we need to embrace
more
> general notions of location in
documents. This is a problem others have
> faced, and solved.
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
>
Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of
Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College
of
> Medical, Veterinary and Life
Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of
> Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Skype: rdmpage
>
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com<http://iphylo.blogspot.com/>
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> Citations:
> http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
> On 16 Oct 2015, at
16:33, John Noyes
> <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>>
wrote:
>
> The page
number must definitely be fixed. Otherwise it might become
a
> nightmare, or at best a confusing
pain, to give a meaningful citation to a
> nomenclatural act in on-line or even hard
copy databases/catalogues,
> especially
where longer publications are concerned. That is the
absolute crux
> of the matter. If the
text and other associated details remain the same then I
> have absolutely no problem. It is the
change in page number between early
>
pubs and final pubs that makes all the difference!
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
>
Department of Life Sciences
> Natural
History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
>
London SW7 5BD
> UK
>
jsn at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:jsn at nhm.ac.uk>
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal
Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know
about
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> Of Laurent Raty
> Sent: 16 October 2015 16:21
> To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatural
availability of preliminary electronic
>
versions of taxonomic papers
>
> On 10/16/2015 03:47 PM, Scott Thomson
wrote:
>
> In
response to Laurent. I agree there seems to be no real and
absolute final
> version if you count the
adding of #tags as a part of the document.
>
> Well, I think that,
ideally, it should (have) be(en) possible for the user to
> assess the integrity of a work distributed
electronically. If a publication had
>
been defined as a given distributed file, with a fixed
sequence of bytes, this
> would (have)
be(en) fully straightforward--all it requires is that a
checksum
> value be released together
with the original work. This is fairly standard
> practice for other types of files
distributed through the Internet.
>
Assessing the integrity of a "content and layout",
if the file is allowed to
> change, is at
best a nightmare.
>
>
OTOH, I'm not sure there's a real, deep, qualitative
difference between
> allowing file
alteration as a result of a change in a download date and
ip
> address added to the footer, and
allowing file alteration as a result of a
> change in a page number added to the
header.
> Thus if you *must* allow the
file to change, is it really worth the effort to
> require that the page numbers be
fixed...?
>
> L -
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
>
> Celebrating 28 years
of Taxacom in 2015.
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
>
> Celebrating 28 years
of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years
of Taxacom in 2015.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of
Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list