218 lines
9.9 KiB
Plaintext
218 lines
9.9 KiB
Plaintext
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 I propose to add to publication "unpublished documentation" (letters, labbooks) and use this in the context, but I still do not get what you mean by the reference definition.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"An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number.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
|
|
@
|