It's also time-consuming to write papers in a style dictated by convention, or to package code for re-use. My group does those because science benefits and in a toss-up between "what's good for my group" and "what's good for everyone", I feel more comfortable with the latter
-
-
Demanding people change the format of their data unless it's like encrypted or obfuscated on purpose to stop you using it (if so, they would not make it open, easier to keep it "safe"/private) is a weird flex.
-
If somebody made their data open what's their motive for changing the format just to spite you? They didn't, they just made it open in the format they used, which is how it should be, right?
-
You can ask them to change but why demand it like they should change file types/formats for you? Surely that's a tiny easy thing to do and since it's for you purpose you would know how to do it better than them anyway?
-
Unless I am missing something, which is very possible, what is a case in which it's OK to demand (not kindly ask but demand!) a change in formats as if the data collector has made a huge error?
-
But that is a completely different matter. I think it should suffice that the data is properly labelled, designs identified, and operations declared. My view.
-
Yes, there should always be meta data. Are we talking about meta data or data formats? Different things.
-
*metadata
-
Documentation and metadata are really important, although demands should be phrased kindly and probably dialed back to questions since it's always possible the information is somewhere not yet found by the more data parasitic person.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.