Transcript of Questions for Noel Cross & Sally Hinchcliffe

Randy Ballew:

So Noel, in regard to the replication client: You've got some wet-ware intervention [= a human operator]... so the client just caches transmissions until a human comes in, scans the contributions, and does a bulk insert into the database? Is that what's going on?
 

Noel Cross:

What happens really... Well, there are special cases. When there's nothing in the database, it will actually do an insert, because we want people to be able to search this stuff right away. And of course if there's nothing there... well... So, it's a little complicated, but essentially that's what happens.
 

John Mitchell:

I have a very uninformed question. Do you have any kind of links for records that are being replicated that might be corrections of records that you had in the database already? Do you create links afterward?
 

Sally Hinchcliffe:

Do you mean where a contribution is a correction to a record that's already in the database? [JM: "Yes."] Every contribution has a link to the Author that it's a contribution on; unless it's a new contribution -- i.e., a contribution of a new Author.
 

Frank Bisby:

If I publish the name of a new genus of plant, but happen to choose a generic name like "Homo," do you check zoological record to make sure that my plant in the future will not have a homonym with an animal? [Sally: "Eimear is running to the microphone.."]
 

Eimear Nic Lughadha:

No.
 

Frank Bisby:

Why not? [Michael Dadd: "Because we're working on it."]
 

Eimear Nic Lughadha:

We're operating under present codes, and we're not assuming future developments, but we are talking to the Zoologists.
 

Ingrid Miflin:

It sounds to me like you're recording everything that's happening and not evaluating any of it. Do you have any future plans to—when there are some important contributions versus just corrections—to make any differentiation between what is important to read and what is not?
 

Sally Hinchcliffe:

It was probably difficult to see on the slide, but every one of those contributions had an editorial judgment, which will be made by someone who's been given the right to be an editor. The first editor that we would have would be the existing current editor of the Authors of Plant Names which is already there. So everything is passed under the editorial eye, and although it's always exposed immediately to the view of the world, so that they don't try and add it again, it's never given the stamp of approval until the editor has pressed the button to say: "I approve."
 

Eimear Nic Lughadha:

Most of the decisions that are being taken are following sets of rules. They're mostly not subjective decisions. Again, it's not taxonomic, it's nomenclatural, when we're talking about plant names. So we're just saying: "This has been published; it's available for use." We're not saying: "This is the classification that we endorse," but rather: "Here's a name that's available. Here's the author, as it was published." There are some choices to make, but there's not that much complication. We're following rules that have been agreed to, for the most part.
 

Stan Blum:

Unless of course you found out that you hadn't followed the rules or a typo had been made, in which case you'd just correct it, and there would be an audit trail showing who made which correction, and when.