-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
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
metadata template is unclear #99
Comments
It is believed that the metadata files in the REMARK directory are CFF compatible documents.
Should the file extension be .cff?
Metadata should have a
|
Following up on this:
For additional guidance/comparison, the closest thing to a YAML-only academic reference format is this proposal for citeproc YAML that may have support from pandoc: https://blog.martinfenner.org/posts/citeproc-yaml-for-bibliographies This format mirrors Bibtex as much as possible |
The expectation of file name I wonder what motivates the use of an |
If we use CITATION.cff, it would make more sense to require these in the repository itself, rather than the REMARK repository. However, I'm not clear on the mechanics of how this REMARK repository feeds into the website. It's possible that we should be decoupling the website configuration from the providing of citation information. The former would be better suited as part of the editorial function, see #105, than as part of the REMARK standard. |
A bit of background on this discussion: The origin of the md files for metadata was that they were created by Andrij (I think in collaboration with Mridul) as an ad-hoc way of keeping track of the info needed to construct the econ-ark.org launch page. But my strong preference is never to invent some half-baked and ever-evolving way of doing something if there is some existing standard that can be adopted instead, so I asked them to see whether we could use the cff standard to give some structure and standardization to our practices. The idea was to borrow from cff specs whatever elements are already part of that standard and that we also need, and only invent new fields for things that are not already standardized in cff. As you have noticed, that is more of a goal that I have set than it is something that we have already achieved. But I think you sympathize with the spirit. |
Yes, got it. I do sympathize with the spirit. I think with a little more thought about processes we can achieve something even further along those lines. |
Approved:
|
Keep an eye out for additional metadata needed for the website, like PDF of paper file URL. |
cff-version
commit
if we have a field forversion
that points to a tag?date-published-original-paper
field be filled in these cases?authors
listed the authors of the original paper, or of the REMARK?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: