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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Rich,

Twist the words whichever way you like, but the upshot is still that one cannot ever know which version of an online work "first fulfills the requirements of availability", because this depends (by Art. 9.9) on facts in the future, i.e. is it a final version or will it undergo a change in content (and, crucially, does a change in metadata count as a change in content?)

Having availability dependent on facts in the future is not exactly ideal!

Stephen



--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 29/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Laurent Raty'" <l.raty at skynet.be>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
 Received: Friday, 29 January, 2016, 11:00 AM
 
 > >I do recall a
 conversation that effectively concluded that, per Art.
 > >21.9, whichever version first
 fulfilled the requirements of
 >
 >availability would establish the date of
 publication<
 > 
 >
 This is an important point. It explicitly contradicts:
 > 
 > 9.9. preliminary
 versions of works accessible electronically in advance of
 > publication
 
 Not really, because if a work is excluded
 because of 9.9, then it can't be the one that first
 fulfills the requirements of availability. No contradiction
 -- you had it right the first time (i.e., no good definition
 for "preliminary versions ").  
 
 > Art. 9.9 means that any
 subsequent change in content of a work invalidates
 > it. 
 
 Really?  Where do you see that in the Code? 
 Did I miss the place where "preliminary version"
 is defined in this way?
 
 > So, a work which seems to fulfill all
 requirements of availability at one
 >
 time may lose that availabililty if the content subsequently
 changes! 
 
 Says you, but not
 says the Code.
 
 > There
 is
 > debate over whether or not addition
 of metadata counts as a change in
 >
 content? John Noyes says yes, it does. Others say no, it
 doesn't. Is there a
 > right or wrong
 answer?
 
 Nope. Hence the
 ambiguity.
 
 Rich