More Human-readable content required

[nickevansuk]

More than just the license should be required as "human readable", otherwise it is unclear to the data user that this is even a dataset site (and the dataset site will be accessed as the first point of contact for the API in many cases). Currently most dataset sites are parsed equally by humans as by machines.

Suggest all of the following are required in human-readable form:

• the name of the organisation publishing the data
• the standards to which the published data conforms (e.g., the Opportunity standard)
• the version of each of these standards (e.g., '2.0')
• where a link to a data feed is provided, their text should refer to the entity types this feed contains (e.g. SessionSeries, Slots)
• an appropriately-labelled link to documentation relevant to the data feed(s)
• an appropriately-labelled link to a discussion channel for the data feed(s)
• licensing information

[thill-odi]

I think what's difficult here is enforcement. For most purposes (i.e., anything notated as JSON), we've taken 'required' to mean 'the validator throws an error if it's not present or is malformed'. For this particular part of the specification, however, validation is manual, and I expect will happen fairly rarely. And indeed, nothing breaks if you don't include this information - though its absence does reduce the chance of a human then going on to harvest the feed. I'd accordingly prefer to see this information as 'recommended'.