Closed torrin47 closed 5 years ago
This is now implemented.
No picklist for license as I'm not sure if we are going for it. Is there non-trivial adoption of those licenses among extramural researchers? Or desire to encourage adoption?
@aergul - the implementation for access level and rights looks good; I will wait to hear back from @torrin47 regarding the license picklist question before moving it over.
I'm ok with no picklist, provided we include links to the strongly recommended examples page in the guidance. But... it suddenly occurs to me that the guidance for this element in particular (and probably a few others) will be different for EPA users, who we definitely want to default to the standard EPA license. This suggests that maybe our help schema needs to be expanded to allow optional elements with "epaonly" guidance or "externalonly" guidance?
@torrin47 updating guidance to include new categories as described above.
This issue was moved to USEPA/EPA_Non-geo_Metadata_Editor#15
This issue was moved to USEPA/EPA_Non-geo_Metadata_Editor#16
Access level has only three valid values: "public", "restricted public", "non-public".
If access level is public, Rights is optional and free text. If access level is not public, Rights is mandatory and must be selected from the following list:
License must be a URL. We could potentially offer a picklist from the choices here: https://project-open-data.cio.gov/open-licenses/ but would definitely need to allow a user to specify their own license.