Closed duckontheweb closed 3 years ago
Contact is essential to have (I think on STAC collections contact is also required, I may be wrong though). So one suggestion is to change the author field to contact, and require a ContactName and ContactEmail. I agree that author is duplicate with the citation/doi.
So one suggestion is to change the author field to contact, and require a ContactName and ContactEmail. I agree that author is duplicate with the citation/doi.
I like this. In addition to reducing the redundancy with the citation
field I think it makes the intention more clear.
The spec currently has both an
author
field and acitation
field. The only additional information that theauthor
field provides overcitation
is a contact email and (optional) organization.This issue is being opened to discuss the value of the
author
field. Does it provide useful information above and beyond the other fields? If so, is the current definition sufficient or does it need changes?