Align person roles with the OpenRIF Contribution Role Ontology about citation-file-format HOT 8 OPEN

Alternatively, use the CRediT taxonomy, or Scoro ontology, to be investigated.

from citation-file-format.

Does any of these include free form field? They all seem to aim at strict ontology/taxonomy. My community needs something where we can specify which feature each person implemented. Please, let me know whether or not this is part of this suggestion of if it it elsewhere, if not I will create a new ticket with more details.

from citation-file-format.

Hi @wenzeslaus, thanks for the comment.

It seems that for your use case, if you can strictly separate features in the source code, one CFF file per feature might be something feasible.

Other than that, a free form field is a very good suggestion for special cases such as yours, and as a fallback.

What is your community if I may ask?

Also, note that this isn't something that's currently implemented, but will be in the future.

from citation-file-format.

Hi, I'm working on GRASS GIS and its modules. Here is an example of authors section (not a complete example, but shows people and features).

Francesco Tonini (original R version)
Zexi Chen (C++ version)
Vaclav Petras (parallelization, GRASS interface)
Anna Petrasova (single species simulation)

I would like to capture the same in the CITATION.cff file.

However, this is one module (aka function, command, extension, ...), not the whole GRASS GIS, so there would be one CFF file for module which would act, for the purpose of the citation, as a separate software (we go to the dependencies issue here). One CFF file per feature thus seems too many CFF files and the scope key does not seem appropriate either because the contributions build on top of each other (esp. if authors may include people that have not contributed lines of code, but have contributed as testers, designers, reporters, managers (Give credit) and documentation in our case). I'm currently working a tool to extract the information from documentation and convert it to CFF (kind of #18 I guess).

I can still open another ticket for this if you prefer, just let me know.

from citation-file-format.

Hi @wenzeslaus, I'm in the process of answering your colleague P. L. who had inquired about this as well via email. I'll cc you in that email.

from citation-file-format.

On-topic, here's an initial crosswalk of contributor roles by Ted Habermann: https://zenodo.org/record/4767798. This may come in handy when developing/deciding on a vocabulary (if indeed there should be any).

from citation-file-format.

The upcoming release 1.3.0 of the CFF schema adds a key contributors which can help solve the problem where repository owners

1. gift authorship to contributors even when the contribution is insignificant, simply because there is no other mechanism to give thanks OR
2. omit their contributors entirely, thus giving the impression that only they should be credited with the perceived benefits of the software.

However, the current issue as well as some others

1. Allow differentiation between authors/contributors #84
2. Create roles as a simple way to record contribution roles? #112

suggest that CFF needs more granularity in differentiating the specific roles that each contributor had. I'm wondering, who or what would benefit from the additional level of detail? How would these metadata be used?

from citation-file-format.

Locking conversation, please continue discussion in #112.

from citation-file-format.