Initializing a descriptor for Zenodo's DOI #443
Conversation
|
@ethanrd it's open for review. Note that it is missing several affiliations and ORCIDs. |
|
@larsbarring , I'm sorry. I let my branch fall behind, creating that confusion in your PR. To keep it simple, I rebased my branch and added manually your changes. Could you double check if I did it correctly? Thanks! |
|
Looks good as far as I can see. Many thanks. As the change/addition in this PR is focussed and does not involve any other file/components of the repo it is a "clean" addition even if it fell behind the main branch. It just looked more complex than it actually was. |
I used the authors list from version v1.10. I don't know affiliations or ORCIDs, but it's better anyways each one to add yours.
As discussed in the meeting today.
My branch was behind with the official main creating some confusion with @larsbarring's PR. I rebased my branch, and I'm adding here his changes.
Co-authored-by: Sadie L. Bartholomew <sadie.bartholomew@ncas.ac.uk>
Co-authored-by: David Hassell <davidhassell@users.noreply.github.com>
Copied from cf-conventions website.
Copied from CF-Conventions website.
@ethanrd and @JonathanGregory , I just noticed that @kevin-obrien is missing on the contributors' list (https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/blob/main/conventions_contributors.md) @kevin-obrien, could you double check your affiliation and orcid here, please?
It looks like I was using the wrong label according to: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html
|
I suppose I should have put this here.
|
|
The reason for my commenting in the issue, rather than in the PR, is because that's generally preferred for CF discussions on substantive questions (as distinct from typos or other things that don't change the content or meaning significantly). That keeps the discussion all in one place, for easy reference and to make it more obvious to the whole community. |
|
@JonathanGregory , I'm sorry for my lack of attention on #127. Just checking. Shall I revert 7a458440? |
I'm not sure, I'm sorry to say! Am I right that you copied the text initially from the abstract of the conventions? If so, I think that was a good choice, and my opinion is that it would be best, at the moment, to use that text, after deleting the two "[...]" link texts, the "\n", and the "Descriptive information:" at the start. I think those were the editorial changes suggested by Ethan and David. David also suggested changing the content. As I wrote in #127, I feel it would be better to do that in a separate issue, and change it in the abstract as well, to keep them consistent. OK? Many thanks again for your work on this. |
|
@ethanrd and @JonathanGregory , I think I covered all the requests. Please let me know if it is missing anything. |
As requested by @ethanrd
Co-authored-by: Ethan Davis <edavis@ucar.edu>
@taylor13 , could you verify if it, please?
@japamment, could you double check it, please?
As requested by @japamment.
|
@castelao here's my pitiful, unused ORCID: 0000-0002-1041-232X |
Co-authored-by: Martin Raspaud <martin.raspaud@smhi.se>
|
Hi everyone. Is this ready to move forward? It is still missing a few ORCIDs, but we can always add them later. |
|
Yes, I think it's ready. It would be great to close this ancient issue (#127)! Shall I merge this PR? |
|
Thanks, everyone, for your working on this :) |
@HeinkeH, please double check it.
See issue #127 for discussion of these changes.
Release checklist
cf-conventions.adoc?cf-conventions.adocup to date? Versioning inspired by SemVer.history.adocup to date?For maintainers
After the merge remember to delete the source branch.
Tags are set at the conclusion of the annual meeting; until then
masteralways is a draft for the next version.Comments
@ethanrd and @davidhassell, since this came up in the last meeting, let's try it again? Just checking, as I recall the decision (from the governance panel long time ago) was to use Zenodo integrated with GitHub to make the recording and update process easier. If so, let's use a
.zenodo.jsondescriptor to avoid manual editing in the future. Just a reminder, with that choice, we might not be able to edit all fields.Note: This is just a skeleton just to guide it. It is missing fields, and records. For instance, who is going on the list of creators? I guess the natural choice would be the list of authors in the document.
EDIT 2023-11-8: Added issue number