-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add subfields to authors in dataset_description.json #602
Comments
I assume that the proposal only entails modifying the re: the Currently, we say the following according to this part of the spec:
Note that this is a little ambiguous and we could be a lot clearer in terms of what exact datatypes are expected. See this issue, where we want to start improving this state: #533 Looking at the validator schema however, we see that an "array of strings" is expected as input: see link to validator code Now for the present proposal:
that wouldn't be a technical problem. Overall I think this looks cool but it'd need a bit more tweaking (specify what other Let's hear what others have to say. PS: using @ + type also made me accidentally tag https://github.com/type ... sorry 🙂 |
cc @nellh It would be good to have an OpenNeuro perspective on this. |
if anyone is interested here is the current version of the dataset contributor model we are using in DANDI. which adds/overwrites the common model. specifically this uses a field called contributor which can accept either a Person or an Organization as an object with specific roles assigned to these people. this is not BIDS compatible, but should be compatible/translatable with datacite, which i believe is what openneuro uses for DOIs. although i don't know what pieces of metadata are transformed into the datacite model. at present it seems that openneuro doi's provide some basic mapping to creator for all authors:
|
I know this is an old thread, but I was re-introduced to it today by @agt24. I think it would be great to NOT change the
Further reading:
|
To clarify why I said "in lieu of", I meant if a CITATION.cff file is present, then the Authors field should not be included so there is no confusion or conflict of Authors. |
lieu is totally good 'au lieu de' -- already so many french people involved, we don't mind :-D |
@ericearl That's a great idea! +1 from me. |
See also this issue: #901 |
Thank you for your rich historical memory @Remi-Gau! I'll go put a supporting comment there. |
@Remi-Gau It just sounds better when Eric says it... |
Also it sounds better with 2 years of experience about citation.cff. 😏 |
Let's consolidate discussion in #901. If there are points brought up here that need to be copied, please feel free to reproduce them there. |
following a suggestion by @debruine in psych-DS we could have in modality agnostic file an update of the dataset_description.json for authors, removing ambiguities. (not sure what this entail for the validator? as we should allow both types of entries)
tagging @effigies @sappelhoff @robertoostenveld
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: