-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Research Object Crate #119
Comments
Ready to review please. |
Approve |
Hi both, I disagree! It should also include provenance model, see https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/1.2-DRAFT/context.jsonld and see also the RO-Crate project (https://fip-wizard.ds-wizard.org/wizard/projects/c8e39b76-8964-4222-b41b-d3bc83f8193b) from Stian Soiland-Reyes, who is a co-developer of RO-Crate. I also would advice to add "metadata-data linking schema" which RO-Crate certainly is. Also the acronym RO-Crate needs to be added in the long name and it should be mapped to FAIRSharing record: https://doi.org/10.25504/FAIRsharing.wUoZKE. |
@mabablue agree to both! The RO-crate structure documentation shows (in a more human-readable way ;) ) how metadata-data should be linked, and how provenance data could be included. |
hi Iseult please use this template: https://nanodash.knowledgepixels.com/publish?106&template=https://w3id.org/np/RAhZcd-dB6RoguEcKrklUSFsl8A1xptMmyNKCkdnb7AMg to update it |
I have disapproved both nanopublication descriptions, created a new one based on this description and improved the FIP that used the duplicate. |
All finished |
http://purl.org/np/RAcYMfIt1ICpNTg0RCiR0QHfNoSUU-b-5Yw3w06HSL9VA
Review
Revisions
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: