---+!! %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 I propose to add to publication "unpublished documentation" (letters, labbooks) and use this in the context, but I still do not get what you mean by the reference definition.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"An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number.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[[LinneanCoreDefinitions#PublicationDefinition][Publication]] plus [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#UnpublishedDocumentation][Unpublished documentation]] -- except I would treat any "pers.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"}%