[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 27 16:33:40 CST 2016
>In particular, trying to define "Metadata" is like trying to define pornography<
Pornography = representations (verbal, visual, auditory, etc.) of a kind which elicit sexual arousal responses in at least some people.
Now that wasn't so hard (I mean difficult!) was it? It possibly makes some ferrari commercials count as pornography, but perhaps they are to some people!
Anyway, the point is that it is not difficult to come up with a reasonably solid definition of metadata for our purposes:
Metadata = information added by publishers (not authors) to a submitted manuscript. Two documents which differ only in metadata are, by definition, the same version of the publication. Ergo, what is or is not a final version has nothing to do with metadata.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>, "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
Received: Thursday, 28 January, 2016, 11:11 AM
I agree in the sense that
we are primarily limited by English language. It's
easy to suggest that a couple of sentences could provide
clarity on the "Metadata issue". What's not so
easy is crafting those sentences in a way that does not
introduce even more ambiguities. In particular, trying to
define "Metadata" is like trying to define
pornography*. We all know it when we see it, but... to
capture an unambiguous definition is extremely elusive.
I've worked in informatics circles for decades, and
believe me when I say there is no clear definition for what
it actually means (for a tiny taste, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata)
Consider that the Amendment
for electronic publication underwent nearly four years of
review, and massive amounts of discussion both within the
Commission and among the public. It is, perhaps, the most
scrutinized and carefully word-smithed part of the Code as
it currently exists. Yet, we have these seemingly endless
discussions about parsing its exact meaning. The Code as a
whole is full of similar (and worse) ambiguities, despite
four editions and nearly a century of revisions and careful
scrutiny.
I believe the
Commission should be much more proactive in issuing
Declarations, and I believe these should be immediately
reflected in the online edition of the Code (which is the
version I now consult routinely). In the old days, we all
used to keep our dogged-eared print copy of the Code full of
notes and clarifications and whatnot to help us come to
consensus on deriving meaning from the words as printed on
the pages. Perhaps part of the way forward for the ICZN is
to make the online version of the Code itself a more
reliable document, containing not just all of the Amendment
text, but also relevant Declarations (including specific
examples), and perhaps even an archived discussion forum
related to specific articles. Some of that already exists
on the 5th Edition Wiki.
In
any case, one thing we ALL probably agree on is that there
is an unacceptably high level of confusion and ambiguity
concerning not so much the exact wording of the Code, but
how best to interpret those words in the context of a highly
heterogeneous reality.
Aloha,
Rich
*With apologies to former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Potter Stewart.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> Of Frank T. Krell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:38
AM
> To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
Laurent Raty; John
> Noyes
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
two names online published - one
> new
species
>
>
Stephen,
> We are in agreement in all
points here. Several Commissioners are already
> bothered, and we will see if the whole
Commission can agree (at least in
>
majority) to proceed in this direction. It might well do. I
think most already
> agreed that some
sort of action and clarification is necessary.
>
> Frank
>
> Dr Frank T. Krell
> Curator of Entomology
>
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature Chair,
> ICZN ZooBank
Committee Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature
> & Science
> 2001
Colorado Boulevard
> Denver, CO
80205-5798 USA
> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
> Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
> Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>
> Test your powers of
observation in The International Exhibition of Sherlock
> Holmes, open until January 31. And prepare
your palate for Chocolate: The
>
Exhibition, opening February 12.
>
> The Denver Museum of Nature & Science
salutes the citizens of metro
> Denver
for helping fund arts, culture and science through their
support of the
> Scientific and Cultural
Facilities District (SCFD).
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf
> Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 1:25
PM
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>;
John
> Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
two names online published - one
> new
species
>
> Hi
John,
>
> >It is
still a big mess and nothing is clear<
>
> On that we agree
(except, of course, that it isn't a mess and nothing
is
> unclear if we are talking about the
Zootaxa publishing model).
>
> >If we have a code of zoological
nomenclature we must follow what it
>
>says not what someone says it is supposed to say or
should say<
>
> On
this I can't quite agree, for the following reason:
language is inherently
> vague and
ambiguous. You have already said that "nothing is
clear", and I
> have agreed.
Therefore one cannot simply follow what the Code
"says"
> ('states'
actually, since it cannot speak!), because it doesn't
make precise and
> unambiguous
prescriptions which can be followed in a well defined
manner.
> Therefore we do need to be
pragmatic, though perhaps not quite so "stick it
> anywhere liberal" as Frank Krell
suggests! Your insistence that an
>
unpaginated online first version be denied availability is
simply
> counterproductive and causes
more problems than it solves.
>
> Of course, what we actually need is a
simple official declaration by the ICZN
>
(perhaps just a couple of sentences) to the effect that
metadata doesn't
> matter and
clarifying that online first versions are to be considered
available
> (provided that they are
otherwise fully Code compliant). But can the ICZN be
> bothered?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 27/1/16, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published
-
> one new species
> To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
> Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016,
10:28 PM
>
> Hi
Stephen,
>
> I hate
to bring this up again
> but there a
good number of us (probably the majority of my colleagues
-
> certainly all the ones that I have
talked to) do not agree that an early view
> version is to be considered available if
it differs in any way (including
>
metadata) from the final published version. The fact that
some of the most
> vociferous of you say
that metadata does not matter is neither here nor
> there. It is still a big mess and
nothing is clear. If we have a code of
> zoological nomenclature we must follow
what it says not what someone
> says it
is supposed to say or should say. Hopefully these problems
can be
> ironed out satisfactorily and
will ultimately not have any serious impact on
> nomenclature, especially priority.
>
> 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
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: 26 January
>
2016 20:57
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> Laurent Raty
>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> Important note
Re: two names online published - one new species
>
> Laurent,
>
> Once again you are
mistaken,
> but that doesn't
reflect badly on you, it reflects badly on the the
almost
> bewilderingly confusing way that
the Code has been written.
>
> As long
> as the
early view file is considered to be the version of record
(with
> preregistration on ZooBank truly
indicated within), all that matters is that
> the PDF file for it contains something
which can be reasonably interpreted as
>
a date of publication. If the subsequent print edition
is different in any
> regard, this is
irrelevant.
>
> So,
in your example a
> statement
"Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in the online
edition contains
> a date of
publication (incompletely specified as 2015), so, all
other things
> being equal, is Code
compliant. It is irrelevant what happens after that.
> What is technically made available is the
online first PDF (which probably
>
never gets archived, but actual archiving isn't
actually a Code requirement!)
>
> It is all a big mess but a few
> things are clear enough.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 27/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names
online published - one new
> species
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Wednesday, 27
January, 2016, 9:30 AM
>
> Stephen,
>
> When an early view
file
> issued
> in 2015 gets included in a
2016
> volumes, an original
statement "Systematic Entomology (2015), DOI:
>
>
> 10.1111/syen.#####" (as in the
>
>
yet-to-be-published file here:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12157/epdf
> ) is
> *changed* into a
> statement
> "Systematic
Entomology
> (2016), 41,
##-##."
> (as in this
file:
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12142/epdf
> , which is
> registered in
> ZooBank as
> being published on 12 Aug
2015:
>
> http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoo
>
>
bank.org:pub:38D703ED-127A-4DB0-8153-8D78AF4AC212
> ).
>
> The year
> that appears in
> this statement in the
final
> file (the only one that
remains) is *not*, nor is even
>
*intended* to be, the year of publication of the pdf
file that we are trying
> here to make
"published".
>
> It
> is
the year of publication of the print run.
>
> And of
nothing
> else.
>
>
> Cheers, Laurent -
>
>
> On
01/26/2016 08:43 PM,
>
> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > Laurent,
> >
>
> >
>
You
> are contrasting
"in the work
> itself" with
"metadata", but this >
>
isnot necessarily so. Remember that the concept of
"metadata", as used >
>
here, didn't exist when the Amendment was drafted.
Zhang just >
> subsequently pulled
it out of a hat in order to try to save the >
Amendment
> from objections relating to
"preliminary versions". Anyway, if > you
> contrast "in the work itself"
instead with "just on the publisher's >
web
> page for the article, or
elsewhere", then "Systematic Entomology >
(2016),
> 41, 287–297"
> is "in the work
itself". This seems
> like a
> reasonable and pragmatic interpretation to make,
which avoids
> this > particular
problem.
> >
> >
>
> Cheers,
> >
> >
>
Stephen
>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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 29 years of
> Taxacom in 2016.
>
_______________________________________________
> 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 29
years of
> Taxacom in 2016.
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Channeling
Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Channeling
Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list