|
Post by Alexis on Jan 21, 2008 22:45:30 GMT
So it's the ICRA to blame then? :-)
The net is merely one storage place - a server in a building. As that server belongs to someone else, the contents are ephemeral. But the actual artwork would be owned by the ICPS on CD, which should last for 100 years stored properly, and infinitely if backed up every 75 years. A piece of paper could last a thousand years and be reasonably legible, or alternatively fade to nothing in the sun after 3 years.
All I'm saying is that if I wanted to register a cultivar, it should be just as legitimate if printed in a physical journal or whether it's on a secure CD or hard drive AND put on the web.
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Jan 21, 2008 23:00:24 GMT
As I see it, one of the key challenges for the future for the Code is to reconcile the archival requirements with electronic publication. We are all moving towards e-publishing at an astonishing speed. The committee responsible will have to bite the bullet before long - the current position, of disregarding electronic publication, is not sustainable long term. Interestingly, it could see a significant change in the role and significance of the ICRA's as the volume of cultivar descriptions grows.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Jan 21, 2008 23:26:38 GMT
Alexis - You have a touching faith in technology. ;D
The reality is that paper lasts and digital data doesn't and I suspect it will be a long time before the issues surrounding safe archival storage of digital data are resolved. No one actually knows the life of a CD or DVD and the pace of technological change is such that the equipment to read these discs probably won't be available in ten years time, let alone one hundred.
There are many examples of valuable digital data that has been irretrievably lost or very nearly lost. One example that I've mentioned before is that of the BBC Domesday project. The data was only retrieved at the last moment by firing up the only remaining working example of a particular videodisc player. In the space of only twenty years the data was almost lost for good.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Jan 22, 2008 0:23:20 GMT
I stand with feet straddling both sides of this abyss.
I agree that, so far, a paper publication is more stable, but I am continually frustrated by cultivar and species descriptions that are published in either obscure "journals" or in journals to which I or my local library do not subscribe -- in both cases, the information is essentially unavailable to me. The advantage of paper books and journals is that they are widely distributed in libraries and private collections. It is unlikely that all copies will disappear from all of the locations. Unfortunately, to save money, many libraries are reducing the number of hard-copy subscriptions or converting to electronic subscriptions.
Electronic copies can be made readily and easily available. The downside is longevity. For many years, I have been in the business of archiving large amounts of scientific data. The archiving media changes rapidly. It is a serious task of both backing up old punch-cards, tapes, disks, CDs, DVDs and converting the obsolete media to something readable today. Not only does the media degrade with time, the hardware disappears and the old software no longer works. How many people have ever seen a punch-card reader? The solution is to continually monitor and manage the electronic files. Redundancy is very important because servers crash, back-ups degrade, data managers leave or lose interest.
I think, for the foreseeable future, both hard-copy and electronic versions are desirable. Hard-copy for longevity, electronic for rapid and broad access.
|
|
kby
Full Member
Posts: 162
|
Post by kby on Jan 22, 2008 2:07:12 GMT
Unfortunately, to save money, many libraries are reducing the number of hard-copy subscriptions or converting to electronic subscriptions. Electronic copies can be made readily and easily available. The downside is longevity. For many years, I have been in the business of archiving large amounts of scientific data. The archiving media changes rapidly. It is a serious task of both backing up old punch-cards, tapes, disks, CDs, DVDs and converting the obsolete media to something readable today. Not only does the media degrade with time, the hardware disappears and the old software no longer works. How many people have ever seen a punch-card reader? The solution is to continually monitor and manage the electronic files. Redundancy is very important because servers crash, back-ups degrade, data managers leave or lose interest. I think, for the foreseeable future, both hard-copy and electronic versions are desirable. Hard-copy for longevity, electronic for rapid and broad access. A minor most people don't realize is how much print journals actually cost a library, especially society-published-peer-reviewed ones. A member of a society (for example, American Chemical Society) might get a journal for <$100/year (say). But they aren't allowed to donate it to the library until it's old (maybe 3 years). For a library to get an institutional subscription to the same journal might cost in the $1000s! Multiply that by a 1000 journals or so and you understnad why libraries cut back on obscure journals! I think some of the format issue could be alleviated if we were willing to go with some more primitive versions of things. For example, just text without formatting (so no bold, italic, etc.) and some very simple but accurate picture format, or at best a simple markup language rather than one that does really complex things (but this is a problem with highly symbolic fields, like math, of course). Ascii English is almost always at least readable; if you can get over the media obsolecense issue, you can get at least some of the information out.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Jan 22, 2008 17:06:07 GMT
I agree with the comments that storing information on silicon-based wafers (i.e., the internet) and carbon-based film (i.e., paper journals) are both strategies that have their benefits. For this reason, the ICPS publishes all new cultivars and all new Latin-named taxa both in CPN and on the ICPS web site.
Cheers
Barry
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Jan 22, 2008 23:55:22 GMT
Yep, maybe I do put too much faith in new media! On the other hand, CD's have been around as long as I have - 25 years!
In no way I am deriding paper based records - I earn a living from mostly printed media.
All I'm saying is why should a cultivar HAVE to be only recognised if it's printed in a journal. Maybe it should be a case of it being recognised as a web submission, but as a matter of course it will be printed in the journal at some point in the future.
On a separate point, I'm not au fait with the economics of the actual printing of the journal. It sounds very expensive Barry - individual colour sheets which in effect cost $xx per cultivar submission seem like something from a bygone era!
|
|
|
Post by kitkor on Jan 23, 2008 0:26:22 GMT
The reality is that paper lasts and digital data doesn't and I suspect it will be a long time before the issues surrounding safe archival storage of digital data are resolved. No one actually knows the life of a CD or DVD and the pace of technological change is such that the equipment to read these discs probably won't be available in ten years time, let alone one hundred. Good points! My partner, who works in the publications department of a liberal arts college (so his job depends on paper), has often said that paper archives are more secure, though only if they're backed up in the digital realm. A fire can destroy paper archives quickly, but digital data can degenerate if not cared for properly. There's also the issue of energy consumption: To maintain digital archives on servers and access that information requires energy, and the internet is largely powered by coal. Once paper is printed, all you need for hundreds of years (if cared for properly) is a light source, which can often been sunlight. A rather minor point, but interesting nonetheless. That being said, digital data stored on servers is relatively safe and secure. CDs and DVDs definitely degenerate, but servers back themselves up continuously, ensuring the safety of the information. Said partner organizes the college's photo collection and has been having a rough time convincing the IT department that a server is necessary to keep the USD$120,000 investment they've made in digital photography over the last few years safe. What does the IT department do? Ignore him and give him two 1-terabyte external drives to manually back up the files on. Well, enough blabbering. Anything else I would say would be a repitition of what Bob said above.
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Jan 23, 2008 12:46:02 GMT
Alexis - You have a touching faith in technology. ;D The reality is that paper lasts and digital data doesn't and I suspect it will be a long time before the issues surrounding safe archival storage of digital data are resolved. No one actually knows the life of a CD or DVD and the pace of technological change is such that the equipment to read these discs probably won't be available in ten years time, let alone one hundred. There are many examples of valuable digital data that has been irretrievably lost or very nearly lost. One example that I've mentioned before is that of the BBC Domesday project. The data was only retrieved at the last moment by firing up the only remaining working example of a particular videodisc player. In the space of only twenty years the data was almost lost for good. Does this mean there is going to be an interface problem with all of the work I've been doing on my 5 1/2" floppy discs in Word Perfect 1 format?! Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Take care, Steven Stewart
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Jan 24, 2008 10:03:53 GMT
LOL! I bet there's a USB 5.25" floppy drive available somewhere out there. Just go to a car boot sale for Word Perfect 1!
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Mar 5, 2008 21:09:23 GMT
I think we are getting side-tracked somewhat with the realities of publishing.Bearing in mind the cost of publishing a new cultivar we need to establish clear parameters on what is worthy to be registered and what isnt.I have always thought that a plant must be truly superior but barry has made me realise that this is not always the case.Wacky traps for example is a deformed plant yet still merrits cultivar status.After all this plant is so different and outstanding when compared to normal dionaea.So perhaps these words should be adopted when contemplating a new cultivar.In other words the plant,whatever the genus,should be 'different and outstanding' if it is to be considered for cultivar status.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Feb 12, 2009 6:48:51 GMT
wallsg7,
I'm afraid you may not realize that there are billions of people on this planet, and that many of them do not share yours, mine, or each other's concept of superior, or outstanding. And that our own perceptions may not have any more validity than anyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Feb 12, 2009 19:35:46 GMT
Interesting discussion.
I agree that everything should be 'named' once it starts being distributed.
By this I mean everything that is noticably different, should be given a name, species or hybrids. While anything seed produced that is 'run of the mill', say a flava fugelii, x mitchelliana etc, should at least be given a code to differentiate it - ie MK-F123 so we all know it's from Mike King, or whoever. All prefix codes should be recorded and published by ICPS and anyone with the same initials who starts releasing plants would need to find some unused prefix.
As we all know plants look different when grown under different conditions. So you can end up buying a plant you already have, because it looked different (nicer) at the time.
It would seem to me that this is best achieved by submitting photo's / descriptions to ICPS via the Web, which they can 'publish' on their site for everyone to see, while at the same time printing off copies to store in some archieve.
This is surely the only way to avoid Sarra's / Neps getting into the same mess as VFT's - although at least these are named, it's just that too many different names refer to the same thing. But at least with registering made easy, we'd now who the rogues doing this are and perhaps stop it.
As has already been said by others, 'unworthy' cultivars will soon fall by the wayside. But at least we will know what is what.
The sooner this happens the better.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Mar 5, 2009 23:49:31 GMT
Without a concerted effort, by most CP growers and collectors, to use a unified system, like the one that already exists, the cultivar naming system. We can all continue to experience something that often confounds me. I hear about a plant someone is growing, they give it their own descriptive name, I buy or trade for it, because I believe it to be unique, then after I'm growing it, I discover it to be indistinguishable from seven other plants I obtained in similar fashion. I do understand that even if I only collected published cultivars, this would not guarantee that it would not still happen, but I would like to have the opportunity to find that out.
|
|