[Esip-preserve] "mandatory if applicable" considered harmful

[Parsons, Mark]

Agreed. I’ll try and work all these comments into a revised draft of the guidelines in the next couple weeks. (I want to see what Peng comes up with too)

I’m thinking an approach of: Here’s the mandatory fields and how they are used. Here’s some other fields that may be essential in some situations, and here’s some examples of how those fields might apply in certain situations. The point is to do the best you can. In some special situations, even mandatory fields (like a PID) may be skipped (for now) while still providing a decent citation (if other information like location is provided).

cheers,

-m.




On 31 Aug 2018, at 12:44, James Frew via Esip-preserve <esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:


Hear hear. I've detested "mandatory if applicable" since I first encountered it in the CSDGM.

If we care enough to make something mandatory in some cases, then we oughta be specific about what those cases are.

My $0.02,
/Frew

On 2018-08-28 11:45, Ted Habermann via Esip-preserve wrote:
I think decisions about cardinality and “mandatoryness” (not sure of right word there) should be driven by use case.
_______________________________________________
Esip-preserve mailing list
Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org>
https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/%
(_internal_name)s


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20180831/8c43b9b5/attachment.html>