如何向 R 包(使用 roxygen2)的想法(而非代码)贡献者致谢?
How to acknowledge contributors of ideas (not code) to R package (using roxygen2)?
有人可以通过多种方式帮助 R 包,包括
- 大量原创code/ideas(
author
或contributor
)
- 一些琐碎的代码(例如更正拼写错误)(可能
contributor
)
- 没有代码,但提供想法或领域专业知识(
??
)
首先,author
角色最合适。在 roxygen2
中,这可能看起来像这样 (aut
):
Authors@R: c(
person("Hadley", "Wickham", , "hadley@rstudio.com", c("aut", "cre"), comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0003-4757-117X")),
person("Romain", "Fran\u00e7ois", role = "aut", comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-2444-4226")),
person("Lionel", "Henry", role = "aut"),
person("Kirill", "M\u00fcller", role = "aut", comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-1416-3412")),
person("RStudio", role = c("cph", "fnd"))
)
在第二种情况下,contributor
角色可能(也可能不)合适。例如
Authors@R: c(
person("Some", "One", , "someone@rstudio.com", c("ctb"))
但是当有人帮助 ideas/discussion/domain 专业知识,但 没有 贡献代码时(案例 3),是contributor
角色仍然合适,如果不合适,如果想法塑造了包的方向,这是否会改变 - 即他们的想法是 非常 很重要,尽管他们没有编写代码。
到目前为止我所知道的
Library of Congress定义contributor
为
A person, family or organization responsible for making contributions to the resource. This includes those whose work has been contributed to a larger work, such as an anthology, serial publication, or other compilation of individual works. If a more specific role is available, prefer that, e.g. editor, compiler, illustrator
另一种可能是conceptor
A person or organization responsible for the original idea on which a work is based, this includes the scientific author of an audio-visual item and the conceptor of an advertisement
但这似乎表明 整个 work/package 是基于他们的想法(可能 是真的,但不是必然)
其他参考资料
Hadley 将贡献者定义为
those who have made smaller contributions, like patches.
问题
对于 仅 输入想法(而非代码)的人来说,合适的角色是什么? R 包(例如 README.md
中的注释,一个单独的文件,例如根目录中的 CONTRIBUTIONS
文件,其他东西??)
据我所知,贡献者的描述中没有任何内容说他们需要编写代码。
tl;dr 我会根据贡献的大小在 aut
和 ctb
之间进行选择(正如@Dason 所说,ctb
s 不需要编写代码)。因为你说 "their ideas were very important",听起来 aut
比较合适。
LOC 参考很好,但是 直接 来自 R-Core 的指导在 ?person
和 Kurt Hornik(R-core 成员)R Journal article (these sources have more detail than Writing R Extensions ,它只是说 "See ?person
for more information.")。来自 Hornik 的文章:
In general, while all MARC relator codes are supported, the following usage is suggested when giving the roles of persons in the context of authoring R
packages:
- "aut" (Author): Full authors who have made substantial contributions to the package and
should show up in the package citation.
- "ctb" (Contributor): Authors who have made
smaller contributions (such as code patches etc.) but should not show up in the package
citation [emphasis added]
None 其他角色(com
、cph
、cre
、ctr
、dtc
、fnd
, rev
, ths
, trl
) 似乎与此相关。
我认为没有任何其他标准化场所可以提供贡献信息,但您可以将信息添加到整个包帮助文件 aliased to pkgname-package 或在包贡献者的评论字段中:
The ‘comment’ field can be used for “arbitrary” additional
information about persons.
有人可以通过多种方式帮助 R 包,包括
- 大量原创code/ideas(
author
或contributor
) - 一些琐碎的代码(例如更正拼写错误)(可能
contributor
) - 没有代码,但提供想法或领域专业知识(
??
)
首先,author
角色最合适。在 roxygen2
中,这可能看起来像这样 (aut
):
Authors@R: c(
person("Hadley", "Wickham", , "hadley@rstudio.com", c("aut", "cre"), comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0003-4757-117X")),
person("Romain", "Fran\u00e7ois", role = "aut", comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-2444-4226")),
person("Lionel", "Henry", role = "aut"),
person("Kirill", "M\u00fcller", role = "aut", comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-1416-3412")),
person("RStudio", role = c("cph", "fnd"))
)
在第二种情况下,contributor
角色可能(也可能不)合适。例如
Authors@R: c(
person("Some", "One", , "someone@rstudio.com", c("ctb"))
但是当有人帮助 ideas/discussion/domain 专业知识,但 没有 贡献代码时(案例 3),是contributor
角色仍然合适,如果不合适,如果想法塑造了包的方向,这是否会改变 - 即他们的想法是 非常 很重要,尽管他们没有编写代码。
到目前为止我所知道的
Library of Congress定义contributor
为
A person, family or organization responsible for making contributions to the resource. This includes those whose work has been contributed to a larger work, such as an anthology, serial publication, or other compilation of individual works. If a more specific role is available, prefer that, e.g. editor, compiler, illustrator
另一种可能是conceptor
A person or organization responsible for the original idea on which a work is based, this includes the scientific author of an audio-visual item and the conceptor of an advertisement
但这似乎表明 整个 work/package 是基于他们的想法(可能 是真的,但不是必然)
其他参考资料
Hadley 将贡献者定义为
those who have made smaller contributions, like patches.
问题
对于 仅 输入想法(而非代码)的人来说,合适的角色是什么? R 包(例如 README.md
中的注释,一个单独的文件,例如根目录中的 CONTRIBUTIONS
文件,其他东西??)
据我所知,贡献者的描述中没有任何内容说他们需要编写代码。
tl;dr 我会根据贡献的大小在 aut
和 ctb
之间进行选择(正如@Dason 所说,ctb
s 不需要编写代码)。因为你说 "their ideas were very important",听起来 aut
比较合适。
LOC 参考很好,但是 直接 来自 R-Core 的指导在 ?person
和 Kurt Hornik(R-core 成员)R Journal article (these sources have more detail than Writing R Extensions ,它只是说 "See ?person
for more information.")。来自 Hornik 的文章:
In general, while all MARC relator codes are supported, the following usage is suggested when giving the roles of persons in the context of authoring R packages:
- "aut" (Author): Full authors who have made substantial contributions to the package and should show up in the package citation.
- "ctb" (Contributor): Authors who have made smaller contributions (such as code patches etc.) but should not show up in the package citation [emphasis added]
None 其他角色(com
、cph
、cre
、ctr
、dtc
、fnd
, rev
, ths
, trl
) 似乎与此相关。
我认为没有任何其他标准化场所可以提供贡献信息,但您可以将信息添加到整个包帮助文件 aliased to pkgname-package 或在包贡献者的评论字段中:
The ‘comment’ field can be used for “arbitrary” additional information about persons.