wiki-archive/twiki/data/UBIF/LCReferenceDiscussion.txt,v

head	1.11;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.11
date	2007.03.06.17.30.00;	author TWikiGuest;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.10;

1.10
date	2004.11.08.09.41.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.9;

1.9
date	2004.11.07.06.46.00;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.8;

1.8
date	2004.11.01.09.46.42;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.7;

1.7
date	2004.10.31.19.50.31;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2004.10.31.10.01.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2004.10.31.06.23.00;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2004.10.31.06.20.43;	author NozomiJamesYtow;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2004.10.31.06.19.24;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2004.10.31.01.22.48;	author NozomiJamesYtow;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2004.10.30.23.45.45;	author NozomiJamesYtow;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.11
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@---+!! %TOPIC%

%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099906860" format="1.0" version="1.10"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="Trash.LinneanCoreDefinitionsDiscussion"}%
Discussion on [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#ReferenceDefinition][Reference]]
	* Gregor: I think this does not work. The instance of the author of this text is sitting in front of the screen in Germany. It is not date-stamped. Honestly - I do not get what you try to express. I propose to add to publication "unpublished documentation" (letters, labbooks) and use this in the context, but I still do not get what you mean by the reference definition. Why is it not Reference: <strong>"An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number. A reference does not have to include publication date or authorship, provided the reference is unambiguous by other means (e.g. author plus volume number ("Sacc. XXII: 421"), or title that is unambiguous in the context ("Species plantarum, p. 30")."</strong> -- 30. Oct. 2004
		* Richard: Yes, your comment *is* date-stamped, as per the Wiki revision history.  Suppose in your paragraph above, you said something to the effect of "I believe that <em>Anthias ventralis</em> subsp. <em>hawaiiensis</em> Randall should be placed in the genus <em>Pseudanthias</em> Bleeker, and treated as a full species instead of a subspecies of <em>Pseudanthias ventralis</em> Randall."  Further suppose you were a world expert on this group.  Finally, suppose you died in a plane crash the next day.  There is taxonomic value in this Wiki text message.  It is information that someone might want to archive and cite and index in a nomenclator.  Therefore, I think of it as a *Reference* instance.  My idea of a *Reference* is almost identical to [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#PublicationDefinition][Publication]] plus [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#UnpublishedDocumentation][Unpublished documentation]] -- except I would treat any "pers. com." that is documented/archived in some way as a *Reference*.
		* Gregor: The comment *is* date stamped, but the instance of the author *is not* - that is me! That I think is the problem with your original definition. There may be an instance of the author-string, but I am not sure what that would help in the definition. 
		* Richard: Your definition of *Reference* above is what I would use the word "Citation" for.  I know that some people think of "Citation" as simply the form of "Author(s), Year"; but I think of "Citation" more as "An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number."
		* Gregor: I think Citation and reference are close synonyms. If desired so, reference is a neutral term, whereas citation is purpose driven. Both *refer* to object instances, rather than representing them. What do you think of my changed proposal for a definition above?

	* Richard: O.K., I still prefer the word "Reference" as I have definied it, but I agree there is a double-meaning, and could be confused with "Citation".  I suggest *Documentation* to mean what I had previously defined for "Reference": An instance of date-stamped documented information authored by one or more Agent(s).  This would be a super-set to include both *Publications* and unpublished forms of documentation, such as (potentially) field notes, personal communication, specimen labels and information sheets, etc.  If Gregor and others agree, I will change the Definitions page. -- 07 November 2004
	* Richard: I do not like "Name-Source" -- because it implies something specific to "Names", and I would prefer to generalize these definitions. -- 07 November 2004 -- Gregor: I second that. Even if name source is not limited to taxonomic names: Publications and documentations do more than provide names. More in LCPublicationDiscussion -- 07 November 2004
	* Gregor: BTW, the problem I noted on top is still in the definition: "Any form of DOCUMENTED date-stamped instance of one or more Authors (Agents)." It still claims that the instance of an author is date-stamped; I think what is meant is "Any form of date-stamped instance of information by one or more Authors (Agents)." I am not sure whether I have a problem with English here, but I can't see it - please help. -- 8 Nov 2004
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1099216896" from="UBIF.Reference" to="UBIF.LCReferenceDiscussion"}%
@


1.10
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.9
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099809960" format="1.0" version="1.9"}%
d11 2
a12 1
	* Richard: I do not like "Name-Source" -- because it implies something specific to "Names", and I would prefer to generalize these definitions. -- 07 November 2004
@


1.8
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099302402" format="1.0" version="1.8"}%
d9 3
@


1.7
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
a2 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099252231" format="1.0" version="1.7"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCoreDefinitionsDiscussion"}%
@


1.6
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099216860" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
d8 1
a8 1
		* Gregor: I think Citation and reference are close synonyms. If desired so, reference is a neutral term, whereas citation is purpose drive. Both *refer* to object instances, rather than representing them themselves. What do you think of my changed proposal for a definition above?
@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099203780" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
d4 3
a6 2
	* Gregor: I think this does not work. The instance of the author of this text is sitting in front of the screen in Germany. It is not date-stamped. Honestly - I do not get what you try to express. I propose to add to publication "unpublished documentation" (letters, labbooks) and use this in the context, but I still do not get what you mean by the reference definition. Why is it not Reference: An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number. A reference does not have to include publication date or authorship, provided the reference is unambiguous by other means (e.g. author plus volume number ("Sacc. XXII: 421"), or title that is unambiguous in the context ("Species plantarum, p. 30"). -- 30. Oct. 2004
		* Richard: Yes, your comment *is* date-stamped, as per the Wiki revision hsitory.  Suppose in your paragraph above, you said something to the effect of "I believe that <em>Anthias ventralis</em> subsp. <em>hawaiiensis</em> Randall should be placed in the genus <em>Pseudanthias</em> Bleeker, and treated as a full species instead of a subspecies of <em>Pseudanthias ventralis</em> Randall."  Further suppose you were a world expert on this group.  Finally, suppose you died in a plane crash the next day.  There is taxonomic value in this Wiki text message.  It is information that someone might want to archive and cite and index in a nomenclator.  Therefore, I think of it as a *Reference* instance.  My idea of a *Reference* is almost identical to [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#PublicationDefinition][Publication]] plus [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#UnpublishedDocumentation][Unpublished documentation]] -- except I would treat any "pers. com." that is documented/archived in some way as a *Reference*.
d8 2
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="NozomiJamesYtow" date="1099203643" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099203564" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
d5 1
a5 1
		* Richard: Yes, your comment *is* date-stamped, as per the Wiki revision hsitory.  Suppose in your paragraph above, you said something to the effect of "I believe that <em>Anthias ventralis</em> subsp. <em>hawaiiensis</em> Randall should be placed in the genus <em>Pseudanthias</em> Bleeker, and treated as a full species instead of a subspecies of <em>Pseudanthias ventralis</em> Randall."  Further suppose you were a world expert on this group.  Finally, suppose you died in a plane crash the next day.  There is taxonomic value in this Wiki text message.  It is information that someone might want to archive and cite and index in a nomenclator.  Therefore, I think of it as a *Reference* instance.  My idea of a *Reference* is almost identical to [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#PublicationDefinition][Publication] plus [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#UnpublishedDocumentation][Unpublished documentation]] -- except I would treat any "pers. com." that is documented/archived in some way as a *Reference*.
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="NozomiJamesYtow" date="1099185768" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d5 2
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="NozomiJamesYtow" date="1099179945" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d3 1
a3 1
Discussion on Reference
@