Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Missing Errata. CBC 2001 effective N

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>From one non-lawyer to another, I agree with what you say, Scott.

Just to be sure, I looked up "errata" in the dictionary  (Webster's Ninth 
New Collegiate Dictionary).  This should make it crystal clear what an 
"errata" is:

"errata n (1589): a list of corrigenda ..."

Hmmmm.  Maybe I'd better look up "corrigenda" also.

"corrigendum n, pl -da (1850): an error in a printed work found after 
printing and shown with its correction on a separate sheet."

So I guess that, for simplicity, it can be said that errata are a list of 
errors found after printing that should/could have been caught before 
printing, regardless of whether or not it was adopted with the errors.  (How 
often do we read what we think we wrote rather than the words that were 
written?)

On the other hand, an addendum would *add* or *change* something that was not 
erroneous in the printing.

HTH

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Scott Maxwell wrote:

. > David,

. > I will first put a nice disclaimer:  This is solely the opinion of one
. > person and ye who follow it do so at their own risk. (OK, so I don't have
. > the whole "lawyer speak" down pat <grin>)

. > Now, if the errata is what I consider a "true" errata (I define that in a
. > second), then you should have no problem with incorporating it from a
. > legal point of view.  If on the other hand it is not a "errata" or parts
. > of an errate that would be "true", then you could face legal problems if
. > you incoporated it.

. > To me, a "true" errata is a list of mistakes that you incorporated into
. > the document at printing.  In otherwords, for a code like document, the
. > committee drafted, debated, voted on, and approved something that then was
. > reviewed during a public comment period and was officially adopted as part
. > of the code.  If then during the page layout and print process something
. > gets changed from what the committee made, then THAT mistake is a true
. > errata mistake.  This means that in reality if you use what was printed
. > (i.e. the mistake) you are not really following the code since what was
. > printed was not really what approved using the code development process.
. > Thus, in my mind, you really should be using the errata, otherwise you are
. > NOT following the code.

. > Now, occasional someone may try to slip something in the errata that does
. > not really fit the scenario above (while it maybe attempted, it is rarely
. > successful from my experience).  This would be something like the
. > committee realizes after the document is printed that they put some small
. > minor thing in there that is really "boneheaded".  Thus, they realize
. > their mistake (even though it went through the full approval process
. > without being caught) and want to correct it.  That is NOT what an errata
. > is for.

. > Basically, if an errata item changes the intent (or even form) of what the
. > committee actually approved, then in my mind it is not a "true" errata
. > item, but rather a thinly veiled code change.  This can even be for things
. > that somebody mistyped during the original draft phase, but if that
. > mistyped item remained in its incorrect form through the whole code
. > development process without being caught, then THAT is what was approved
. > even though it is clear wrong.  You would then need to do an "emergency
. > code change" to correct it, rather than an errata.

. > Obviously, the tough part then becomes how do you and I know which errata
. > items are "true" and which are not "true".  For that, I don't have a nice
. > easy answer for.

. > Just my thoughts.

. > HTH,

. > Scott

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********