Taxacom: Clarification RE e-publication (zoology) - new name has ZooBank LSID (or doesn't), publication does

[Tony Rees]

Hi Rich, I "get" the logic you are describing, but still think it could
have been implemented in a different way, e.g. requiring (in its most basic
way) that EITHER the new name, or the new work, display its assigned
ZooBank identifier right there in the publication in order for the name to
be available from that work/ date. But others more adept than me have no
doubt been down this path and decided that would be too onerous, for
whatever reason :)

Best - Tony

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023, 6:39 am Richard Pyle, <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
>
>
> The logic is actually rather simple (even if flawed in some ways):
>
>
>
> Before a work can be considered “published” in electronic form, that
> publication must be registered in ZooBank (there are reasons for this,
> which I can go into if you want).  This presents a problem: When I’m
> reading an electronic work (PDF), how do I know whether it was registered
> prior to publication?  The intention was that the work itself would provide
> you the answer, but including evidence that registration had taken place
> prior to publication.  Such evidence is typically interpreted as including
> an LSID for the work itself, or the exact date when a work was registered,
> or an LSID for a name within the publication (which is impossible to obtain
> without first registering the work).
>
>
>
> Thus, coming back to my earlier email, the rules are actually pretty
> simple:
>
> 1) The work must be registered in ZooBank prior to it being published;
>
> 2) Evidence of registration must be included within the work itself.
>
>
>
> There are a couple of other rules, including that the work itself must
> contain a date of publication, and the ZooBank record must indicate an ISSN
> and an intended online archive.  These are all pretty meaningless rules
> because there is nothing that says that the date needs to be correct, or
> that the ISSN needs to be correct, or that the work actually be deposite
> din an online archive (only the intention of such must be indicated in
> ZooBank).
>
>
>
> When the Amendment was written, I opposed the “evidence” requirement, and
> advocated for the model that registration is necessary, but could happen
> after publication.  Basically, my preferred approach is: “A work is
> published [and names contained therein are available] when all the criteria
> have been met.”  It shouldn’t matter what sequence the requirements are
> fulfilled, and thus there shouldn’t be a need for “evidence” that
> registration occurred before formatting/dissemination/etc.
>
>
>
> So I agree with you that some of the reasoning and logic is flawed, and
> there are certainly some ambiguities for how to interpret the rules.  But
> it’s reasonably straightforward, and has kinda/sorta worked for the last
> ten years (at least, it’s worked better than I had expected it to).
> However, we’ve learned a lot this past decade about how to improve it, and
> those ideas will be incorporated into the draft Code-5, which will be open
> to public review for at least a year.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
>
> *Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum*
>
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
>
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
>
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> BishopMuseum.org <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbs.bishopmuseum.org%2Fstaff%2Fpylerichard.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C69c533a591b14b4c56e208db2e44f367%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638154645896809823%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=udjBpcWWOWuJTJXVVYvCNKGpIKZBDk5PvDJwffwNnQc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2023 7:24 AM
> *To:* Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> *Cc:* Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Taxacom: Clarification RE e-publication (zoology) - new
> name has ZooBank LSID (or doesn't), publication does not
>
>
>
> The problem for me is that the e-publish requirements for availability, to
> a new user, do not really appear logical at first encounter. In other
> words: to be available prior to print publication, the name needs to be
> accompanied (in its e-published form) by its registered ZooBank LSID.
> Except that it doesn't (that is in fact not a requirement). Also, the
> work needs to be accompanied  (in its e-published form) by its registered
> ZooBank LSID. Except that it doesn't (again, not a requirement: this can be
> inferred, and the work may be invisible via the ZooBank interface anyway,
> except to the person/s who entered it). Hence the confusion, for me, and
> possibly others.
>
>
>
> I'm sure there are good reasons for the above which were debated
> exhaustively prior to deciding on the form of the system and the wording to
> be incorporated in the Code, however that does not make the result any more
> clear to the novice, or even semi experienced user. I think if you were to
> ask ten taxonomists, or users of taxonomic data, to explain their
> understanding of the requirements for e-publication without (or even with)
> reference to the Code, you would find a majority that could not explain it
> correctly. Or maybe I am in a minority of 1 here.
>
>
>
> If I am barking up the wrong tree here, please feel free to ignore this
> comment!
>
>
>
> Regards - Tony
>