[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

[Laurent Raty]

Producing an "exact copy" (bit-for-bit) of a pdf file is, on the 
contrary, one of the easiest things to do. Just select the file in your 
file manager and hit <Ctrl>-C, <Ctrl>-V: done. Of course, in a 
vanishingly small proportion of the cases, you may get a "mutation", and 
end up with a corrupt file. However, this is not a real problem, as it 
is also extremely easy to check that a file is an "exact copy" of 
another file, using things like hash values / checksums.

On the other hand, checking whether the non-metadata portion of the 
content and layout that will be displayed when viewing a pdf file is the 
same as that which will be displayed when viewing another pdf file, that 
otherwise differs, is a nightmare. (Most likely plain impossible.) If 
you adopt any "copy" concept that departs from the "exact", bit-for-bit 
copy, you basically accept, knowingly, never to be able to check for the 
integrity of a work in pdf format.

The problem (?) is that some publishers NEVER produce pdf files that are 
"exact copies". If you download twice the same work from, say, 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ , the two files that that you get will 
be "exact copies" of each other. But if you do the same from, eg., 
http://www.tandfonline.com , the files will differ: each downloaded 
"copy" is in fact a *new* pdf file, generated on demand by the website, 
with each page "tagged" in the margin with your IP and the time of 
download. If "copy" means "exact copy", this method does not produces 
"copies" of a single work at all, it produces a unique file at each 
download, and nothing is published (Art. 8.1.3.2 not satisfied).

Cheers, Laurent -


On 01/28/2016 11:30 AM, Thomas Pape wrote:
>>>> Why not just insist that the final version of record is an
>>>> exact copy of the final published version.
>
> Producing an "exact copy" is not as easy as one might think, as we
> well know from both paper printing and DNA replication. Scientific
> publishing, which works well for disseminating and exchanging
> scientific information, is not necessarily the ideal procedure for
> establishing date-sensitive nomenclatural acts, and certainly not for
> keeping track of them. How to best design and implement the
> "disentanglement" (as of Rich's mail from yesterday) of the
> scientific issues from those relating to nomenclatural legislation is
> a challenge for the ICZN, and certainly a hefty one.
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Taxacom
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Noyes
> Sent: 28. januar 2016 10:45 To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'; 'Frank
> T. Krell'; 'Stephen Thorpe'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Laurent
> Raty' Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
> published - one new species
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> Allowance for "Metadata" is just complicating the issue. Why not just
> insist that the final version of record is an exact copy of the final
> published version. Easy. Obective. No confusion. Absolutely no
> problem with English or any other language. If the publishers do not
> like it then do not publish with them. This is the problem with the
> Code, it tries to accommodate everything which really is a
> non-starter.
>
> John