Talk:Abstract


 * Do not include information that will otherwise be a part of machine readable set of metadata, e.g.:
 * Contact information of the PI (this is a part of Parameter table. (implemented)
 * citing the cruise report, chief scientist, etc. (implemented)

Comments by Doro:
 * The following sentence is difficult to understand: "You can use an extract of your manuscript abstract if it includes a part with a reference to the data." What is meant with it? That the abstract can be an extract of the manuscript abstract if this extract of the manuscript abstract includes a reference to the PANGAEA dataset? Maybe provide an exmaple?
 * Yeah, this is not easy to understand. I think the idea is: if the paper dataset contains some relevant description of the data, then the dataset abstract can be partially a copy of the paper abstract. But generally, I'd even tend to remove the sentence... --Pittauer (talk) 2020-12-01T14:01:46 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment above that the paragraph dealing with the machine readable set of metadata should be rewritten (as a "newby", I can't understand it currently). In case, the metaheader and additional supporting files are mentioned, the user needs to understand: Why should PI contact information, cruise reports citations etc. not be machine-readable? Is it okay if they appear in the metaheader or should the data or restructured somehow (how?)? Is it explicitely recommended to include this metadataas supporting table or not (example needed)? In which case are metadata already part of the data table? I don't think all this information should be included, but in case these topics are mentioned, they should be fully explained.