Enhancing / harmonizing dataset description

[satra]

opening this issue to discuss if we can harmonize the dataset_description schema with the dandiset schema, which amongst several things, allows for all kinds of linked resources and better descriptors of contributors. it would still be bids 2.0.

example: https://api.dandiarchive.org/api/dandisets/000055/versions/draft/

these are all entered through a metadata editor ui, so people who don't know json can fill in things.

also see https://api.dandiarchive.org/api/dandisets/000008/versions/draft/ which has instances (see the relatedResource section) of the dataset being extended by data in two other archives.

the schema is also not just json compliant (and has a json schema attached) but also jsonld.

schemas are released here: https://github.com/dandi/schema/tree/master/releases

[sappelhoff]

@satra may I move this to https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-2-devel or did you want to have it here for better visibility?

[satra]

@sappelhoff - this would be bids 2 and we can definitely discuss there. the main reason i posted this was related to @CPernet 's issue on the genetic dataset descriptors.

is there an active plan / timeline for bids 2?

[sappelhoff]

ok great, migration complete - I labelled it "low impact" because it seems that the required changes would be relatively isolated and it's not too much of an effort to actually do them --> but feel free to change labels or create new ones as you see fit.

There is currently no timeline for BIDS 2, we are currently fully busy with incorporating BEPs and trying to iron out the spec where we can with preserving backwards compatibility

[Remi-Gau]

note that given that BIDS support citation.cff, it may be good to see if things are not better done via citation.cff than by extending dataset_description

I think that the next version of citation.cff may allow more details WRT contributors for example

[yarikoptic]

FWIW zenodo also pretty much switched from their custom json format to support CITATION.cff as the target one, which is :+1: for considering to support it within BIDS . But with that in mind someone should indeed review CITATION.cff format as to expressiveness to describe contributors roles etc. I think the starting reference is

• https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/issues/27#issuecomment-1725075915
• https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/issues/112

I immediately had a "question" - what about some contactPerson or https://schema.org/ContactPoint? there is contact: in CITATION.cff e.g. see example.

[Remi-Gau]

Also see this entry in the changelog of their dev branch: https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/blob/65745bf2b7124053c80dc1ea0f8ade9a4a094561/CHANGELOG.md?plain=1#L16

[yarikoptic]

I personally yet to figure out on some objective procedure to differentiate between Authors and Contributors.

[jspaaks]

Hey folks, just a quick update on contirbutor roles in Citation File Format: I made a PR https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/pull/463 that adds a mechanism to CFF to allow recording contributor roles. I made the preliminary choice to use AllContributors contributior roles, but the exact enum is still subject to change, see discussion in the PR. Most likely it will not be part of CFF 1.3.0

Have a good one!

[Remi-Gau]

thanks for the update I don't mind that the citation.cff people are taking their time with this, better get some consensus on this.