Open BenjaminRodenberg opened 2 years ago
This one is indeed tricky. Is this work more a "fork of the FEniCS adapter" (1) or does it more "use" the FEniCS adapter (2)?
Depending on this, it could be either
For either case, we could create an entry on Zenodo. For (2), we could then additionally cite the paper in the README, "this work uses [1]" ...
I would definitely go for option (2), because this repository is an independent project.
There is, however, still a very strong relationship between this repository and the FEniCS adapter paper:
We should make sure to show this strong relationship here to give credit to the authors of the paper, but also to reduce the effort we have to put into documentation and redesigning the API (I would rather not write another paper about the FEniCS-X adapter, if it is not necessary).
Putting the first release on Zenodo would be great, because we (1) will not have a dedicated paper for the FEniCS-X adapter (see above) and (2) still need a way to cite the FEniCS-X adapter and give credit to contributors of this repository that did not author the FEniCS adapter paper.
I'm trying to summarize some thoughts from https://github.com/precice/fenics-adapter/pull/137 and apply them to the situation for the fenicsx-adapter. We generally have the following three possibilities to refer to this repository:
I'm undecided between option (2) and (3), which is also how I understand this comment by @uekerman.
That's tricky, indeed. I'd be okay with any of the options you mentioned. I like the concept of Zenodo a lot, however I'm not sure if it'd be as accepted in the scientific community as a reference as a paper would be. Do you have any experience with that?
I could also imagine to contribute to a new paper about this adapter, however I won't have the capacity to do that as a first author.
There is an open PR on this topic: https://github.com/precice/fenics-adapter/pull/137
Let's try to finalize this before we release the first version of the fenicsx-adapter.