Closed cboettig closed 9 years ago
Along similar lines, a timestamp is probably nice to have as well. Though then the question becomes: what does a program have to do if it reads a file with a timestamp and writes it again: append another timestamp? Overwrite it?
Good question. Wondering if there's a good way to coordinate thinking about this kind of thing at a higher level so at least whatever we do is consistent across parsers and with most users expectations?
A top-level timestamp is added only if one does not yet exist by add_basic_metadata
since d93056b2496f951896ef35453e0115cafe9525cf, USER
added in a2c94a4b613999d7fa6604cd856294be548f1e88 . Currently this leaves updating the timestamp up to the use of more manual controls by the user. (automatically appending a new timestamp each time seems messy without richer metadata describing the differences, and changing existing metadata without notice seemed rude).
Rutger does this in the PERL version, seems like it could be handy.
I do worry a bit that there's a tendency not use any hierarchical organization of metadata (see #23) that things can get confusing. For instance, when associating publications with the NeXML they are currently just added as annotations at the document-level as well. (e.g. https://github.com/ropensci/RNeXML/blob/master/inst/examples/geospiza.xml)
Perhaps I should be more aggressive about using hierarchical / nested meta elements, though it raises the additional challenges discussed in #23.