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 I propose to add to publication "unpublished documentation" (letters, labbooks) and use this in the context, but I still do not get what you mean by the reference definition. Why is it not Reference: "An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number.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 history. Suppose in your paragraph above, you said something to the effect of "I believe that Anthias ventralis subsp. hawaiiensis Randall should be placed in the genus Pseudanthias Bleeker, and treated as a full species instead of a subspecies of Pseudanthias ventralis 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 My idea of a Reference is almost identical to Publication plus Unpublished documentation -- except I would treat any "pers.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"Author(s), Year"; but I think of "Citation" more as "An attempt to make an unambiguous reference to a publication or unpublished documentation, optionally including a fragment identfier like a page number."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