The fragility of workflows
So I read the Recommended Practice Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group (PDF), and the terminology didn’t particularly bug or thrill me, but one thing jumped right on out of the diagrams near the end of the document: their terminology distinctions are based on the traditional journal workflow.
If open peer review or post-publication review catches on—anywhere—their terminology is in the toilet. Workflows are sometimes fragile.
In a time of experimentation, I’m super-extra-dubious about relying on workflow for terminology distinctions. (I’m also dubious about the publisher-of-record being the only party blessed to call an item “published,” but let that go for the time being.) I suspect this is good enough for now, but how long will now last?