[okfn-help] CKAN fields

[Jonathan Gray]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Rufus Pollock<rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>:
>> Wondered whether it might make sense to have a question mark next to
>> CKAN fields (when entering package info) which brings up further info
>> on hover over or upon clicking?
>
> Do you want this in the read view or in the edit view. I assume the edit view.

Exactly - I was thinking in edit view.

>> Especially with respect to new author/maintainer fields - not entirely
>> clear what should be put in here. Could we give an example?
>
> Author: author of the package (i.e. the organization which is the
> author). So OECD. UN. Joe Bloggs.
>
> Maintainer: who is the maintainer of the package. (If different from
> the author). I felt it might make sense to default this to the person
> registering it on CKAN in the first instance!
>
> Both of these fields are less important for the general listing aspect
> of CKAN and more important for its role as a "Package Index" (for more
> on the difference between those see the CKAN "about" page but for
> coders it is the difference between freshmeat/softpedia and
> PyPI/CPAN/Debian Package Indexes/Repos ...).
>
> The idea is the author allows us to add information about who created
> this package in a free-form manner (unlike the url field) -- which
> means you have someone to contact and credit regarding the pakage. The
> maintainer field is crucial the 'package' aspect of CKAN is this gives
> info about who is actually maintaining this package (my preference is
> for this to be the CKAN maintainer ...).
>
> One thing I do think, now I am reflecting a bit more, is that we
> probably shouldn't have the additional email fields (after all these
> can just go in the main field enclosed in <....>).
>
> Should we remove these? Now would be the time ...

Ah - I understand now. One thing that I initially wondered was whether
this was in any way related to do with integration with 'Is it open?'.
Is there any conceivable advantage to having separate email/name from
a technical point of view (e.g. being able to present email in
suitably obfuscated form, integration with Is It Open?, ...).

Also on an unrelated note, are there privacy implications in putting
people's email addresses under CC-BY-SA? People might be happy to
contacted in relation to package, but not so keen to publish their
email address...

Also - wonder if there's scope for integration with What Do They Know
at some point in the future?

>> Also wondered whether it could be worth having a "license_url" field -
>> for terms of use, copyright or other legal info?
>
> At the moment we cover this information in the notes. What do you feel
> is the benefit of the license_url field as a specific field?
>
> (Saying I realize the same could be said of the author/maintainer
> stuff -- especially given that we have fields for emails as well!)

Mainly to prompt people to include a link for legal info. It can take
time to dig these out - and if people are including details from
license dropdown menu, its quite easy to paste the legal info link
page as well.

What do you think?

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org