Andrius Merkys

@rartino > To echo my comment there, I'm skeptical to "spread out" license information - in particular licenses of individual entries, as this creates a way to trick users by,...

@rartino > But, how should end-users handle the per-record licenses when fetching big data sets? Doesn't that mean that we have to spend CPU cycles and bandwidth to verify for...

@rartino > You don't see a problem with saying that the recommended practice for perfectly normal OPTIMADE use like fetching 1M structures to use in an ML project is to...

During an in-person discussion with @rartino and @ml-evs I became convinced that entries of more restrictive licenses than the main body of data of an implementation belong to a different...

@ml-evs has pointed out that there might be a need to indicate file licenses in `/files` endpoint (#360) once we have it. For now I would say that all files...

> [American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Database](http://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/AMS/amcsd.php) (down at the moment, but available via [Wayback Machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20210630012906/http://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/AMS/amcsd.php)). Crystal structures of all minerals published across various mineralogy journals, grouped by mineral name. COD...

An alternative proposal would be to increase the number of required reviews (currently 2). However, this would not prevent "gangs" from pushing their proposals :wink:, only make that somewhat harder.

This issue was brought up by @ml-evs in today's Web meeting. @rartino asked the providers to express their opinions about it. Personally, I like the proposal to support different string...

Thank you for the explanation. So structures having sites with mixtures of chemical elements or vacancies seem to be corner cases. I would prefer some way to dispel the ambiguity,...

I am trying to remember/understand what we meant by using such combination of requirement levels (#210 seems to introduce them). Having OPTIONAL property support with REQUIRED (=MUST) query support makes...