< User:Robbie Morrison(Difference between revisions)
|
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| − | Some suggestions:
| + | sandbox |
| | | | |
| − | *the various '''Property:*''' pages should explain the meaning of the field. Particularly obscure (for me anyway) is '''Property:Is suited for many scenarios'''. Does that mean that new scenarios can be defined by difference to a reference scenario?
| + | The absence of a license agreement creates a state of legal uncertainty in which users do not know which limitations owners may want to enforce.<ref name="morin-etal-2012"><!-- website URL: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 -->{{cite journal | last1 = Morin | first1 = Andrew | last2 = Urban | first2 = Jennifer | last3 = Sliz | first3 = Piotr | title = A quick guide to software licensing for the scientist-programmer | date = 26 July 2012 | journal = PLOS Computational Biology | volume = 8 | issue = 7 | pages = e1002598 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598 | issn = 1553-7358 | url = http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598&type=printable | access-date = 2016-12-10}} {{open access}}</ref>{{rp|1}} |
| − | *the '''Property:Math modeltype''' should also accept the following values: ''accounting'', ''hybrid'', and ''game theory''. And possibly ''energy-economy'' or ''economic equilibrium'' or ''general equilibrium'' (for top-down models, of which there are none so far), ''input/output'', ''econometric'', and ''integrated assessment'' (for completeness, more than anything else, at this point).
| + | |
| − | *the '''Property:License''' need only record the abbreviated form of the license where it is well known, for example: GPLv2 and not GNU General Public License version 2.0. The '''Property:License''' page can then contain a list of expansions.
| + | |
| − | *the '''Property:Model source public''' could be renamed '''Property:Distribution''' and contain the values: ''git repository'', ''svn repository'' (not that I know of any projects using subversion), ''download'' (anonymous download that is), ''on application'' (meaning requires registration), and ''by invitation'' (meaning that applicants will be screened and approved).
| + | |
| − | *a new '''Property:First''' release date to record the year or full date of first public release (this would provide interesting historical information)
| + | |
| − | *a new '''Property:Status''' which accepts: ''planned'', ''active'', ''unmaintained'', and ''discontinued'' (this would allow users to see which projects are alive or not).
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | In addition:
| + | == References == |
| | | | |
| − | *maybe the license information should be split into '''Property:Code license''' and '''Property:Data license''' to distinguish between the codebase (say GPLv3) and datasets (say CC BY 4.0).
| + | <references /> |
Latest revision as of 19:11, 18 December 2016
sandbox
The absence of a license agreement creates a state of legal uncertainty in which users do not know which limitations owners may want to enforce.[1]:1
[edit] References
- ↑ Morin, Andrew; Urban, Jennifer; Sliz, Piotr (26 July 2012). "A quick guide to software licensing for the scientist-programmer". PLOS Computational Biology. 8: e1002598. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598. ISSN 1553-7358. Retrieved 2016-12-10.
