Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

documentation for eml_project incorrectly asserts that there must be a personnel with role "originator" #281

Closed
emilyodean opened this issue Jan 11, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@emilyodean
Copy link

@emilyodean emilyodean commented Jan 11, 2018

The "personnel" subsection of the eml-project documentation states that "A project must have at least one originator." This is inconsistent with the actual validation of the EML, which does require that each personnel have a "role" but does not require one of those personnel's roles to be "originator."

@mbjones mbjones added this to the EML2.2.0 milestone Jan 12, 2018
@mbjones
Copy link
Member

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 12, 2018

Thanks, @emilyodean. Good catch on the language. We need a way to state that each project must have at least one personnel, but that is awkward language wise. I'll think about what the edit should be, but am open to suggestions.

@amoeba
Copy link
Contributor

@amoeba amoeba commented Jan 12, 2018

Why not just:

The Personnel field extends ResponsibleParty with role information and is used to document people involved in a research project by providing contact information and their role in the project. A project must have at least one originator.

@mbjones mbjones added the next label Jan 12, 2018
mbjones added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2018
@mbjones mbjones added in progress and removed next labels Jan 12, 2018
@mbjones
Copy link
Member

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 12, 2018

That sounds good. Changes committed to 2.2 branch. Please review, otherwise this will go out with the 2.2. release.

@amoeba
Copy link
Contributor

@amoeba amoeba commented Jan 12, 2018

LGTM, thanks! Please close if that was enough of a review.

@mbjones
Copy link
Member

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 12, 2018

I'll leave it open in the review state for a bit to see if others in the EML community have comments. If not, then I'll close it as we prep for release. Thanks.

@mobb
Copy link
Contributor

@mobb mobb commented Jan 12, 2018

my only comment is that this change looks fine. I agree, the original wording was awkward.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants