[ckan-discuss] Multiple authors etc

[Mark Wainwright]

I don't really care about the default schema. They can stay there if
they like, I just want them out of the default UI form.

Saying that, it will only create work providing a workaround if
anyone's really using it. So far that's not very clear. Liip were the
most plausible example, but it turns out they are just using it as a
workaround because there are no hierarchical organisations - which
there will be from CKAN 2.2.

If anyone is using them in the 'recommended' way (as details for an
extra author), this really should be done with multiple authors
(#1365), and they ought to think of making that shift at some point
assuming #1365 is implemented. But I agree, we need not force that
work on them straight away.

Mark


On 17/12/2013, Ross Jones <ross at servercode.co.uk> wrote:
> There’s no reason that the data, if it exists, couldn’t be migrated to an
> extra as part of the upgrade to the version without the maintainer field,
> however...
>
> Unless there’s a dramatic change to the schema in a future release(perhaps
> basing the default schema on DCAT), where there is an opportunity to make
> the change with plenty of notice and an easy migration I think removing
> fields from the default schema should be avoided.
>
> Those ‘unused’ fields might be considered cruft in some respect, but will
> likely end up generating even more in providing a workaround to each one
> removed.
>
> Ross.
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 15:31, Stéphane Guidoin <stephane at opennorth.ca> wrote:
>
>> The obvious issue with this approach is that it will require some work for
>> implementation that are currently using the maintainer fields and will see
>> it disappear. They will have to create 2 extra fields and then write a
>> script to transfer the content. Not sure they will appreciate the
>> surprise.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Mark Wainwright
>> <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:
>> After some discussion on #1366, I believe we should just delete the
>> "maintainer" fields:
>>
>> https://github.com/okfn/ckan/issues/1402
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/12/2013, Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I think there's a problem with 'Author' and 'Maintainer'. A digital
>> > object in practice may have multiple authors; the meaning of
>> > "maintainer" is unclear.
>> >
>> > I'm sure  I've suggested these in the past, but anyway, I've just
>> > created Github issues for what I think should be done with these -
>> > comments welcome:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/okfn/ckan/issues/1365
>> > https://github.com/okfn/ckan/issues/1366
>> >
>> > Probably best to comment there rather than here.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Business development and user engagement manager
>> > The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> > Empowering through Open Knowledge
>> > http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Business development and user engagement manager
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-discuss mailing list
>> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stéphane Guidoin
>> Director, Transportation
>> Open North
>> 514-862-0084
>> http://opennorth.ca
>> Twitter: @opennorth / @hoedic
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-discuss mailing list
>> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
>
>


-- 
Business development and user engagement manager
The Open Knowledge Foundation
Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject