search

ResearchObject / principles

0 stars 0 forks source link

Solve the wording issue of principle 6 #4

Open junszhao opened 10 years ago

junszhao commented 10 years ago

This is related to issue #1

junszhao commented 10 years ago

Now that the target audience of the document is clearer, it is easier to understand what to ask for RO checklists.

The new proposed wording is as follows: Where possible, the coverage of an RO, i.e. the collection of components related to a research activity and metadata about them, should be governed by community Minimum Information Checklists. The depth of such checklists should be guided by community norms or specific scenario requirements.

So if checklists do not exist for a community or is not required, then an object can still pass as an RO.

It kept a generic term, without specifying how the checklists governance should be provided.