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

Review metadata #60

Closed
dfalster opened this issue Aug 16, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Review metadata #60

dfalster opened this issue Aug 16, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@dfalster
Copy link
Member

dfalster commented Aug 16, 2016

This is happening next Tuesday at 10am. Can everyone take a look at the existing metadata and think about what more we might like to include? (ping @rachaelgallagher @snubian @jamesrlawson)

@dfalster
Copy link
Member Author

One thing I'm wondering about is whether we want to include proper (i.e. structured) bibliographic information. My answer preferences is yes, but interested to know what others think.

We could include this the metadata.yml, e.g.

primary:
  author: Daniel S. Falster and Mark Westoby
  title: Alternative height strategies among 45 dicot rain forest species from tropical Queensland,  Australia
  journal: Journal of Ecology
  year : 2005
  volume: 93
  pages: 521--535
  doi: 10.1111/j.0022-0477.2005.00992.x

Or in a separate bibtex file, e.g.

@article{FALSTER2005,
  author = {Daniel S. Falster And Mark Westoby},
  title = {Alternative height strategies among 45 dicot rain forest species from tropical Queensland,  Australia},
  journal = {Journal of Ecology}
  year  = {2005},
  volume = {93},
  pages = {521--535},
  doi = {10.1111/j.0022-0477.2005.00992.x},
}

It doesn't much matter which one, as it's easy enough to convert. My preference would be to keep it in the metadata.

The benefits of including proper structured information are that:

  1. We can set it up so that people can directly import the references into their own bib systems.
  2. Allows formation styke to be customised (e.g. for different journals)
  3. Makes it easier to parse information about studies (they're data rather than text blob

Using the existing DOIs we should be able to retrieve information for many studies using some online tools, e.g. crossref or doi2bib.

@dfalster
Copy link
Member Author

Discussion re bib data now in #64

@dfalster
Copy link
Member Author

dfalster commented Sep 7, 2016

Following review we agreed to:

  1. Condense min, max into same trait name (done, via 3dc436d)
  2. Add better source info (see Add full citation details for primary and secondary references #64)
  3. Construct a table of methods and add infrastructure for collating these (Construct a table of methods #67)
  4. Add instructions for converting traits & subs to csv table and back again (Add instructions for converting traits & subs in metadata to csv table and back again #68)
  5. Big code delete (done, Purge unused/redundant code #63)

@dfalster dfalster closed this as completed Sep 7, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant