Val Lorentz

I'm glad to hear it :)

I don't understand what you are talking about. What do you want to change and why?

Postponing to v4.0 because this needs some design work and we don't have a concrete proposal (AFAIK)

Also [check out SPDX](https://spdx.dev/learn/overview/), they have support for expressing relationships between projects and files (and even snippets) and describing the content of these files.

@emersion It can configure the buffer size, but there is always a limit. And unlike clients (which only deal with a handful of semi-trusted connections), it's unlikely servers will allow...

Solutions A and C should be amended to change the order of contexts: `["http://schema.org", "https://doi.org/doi:10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0"]` or `["http://schema.org", {our new terms}]` instead of `["https://doi.org/doi:10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0", "http://schema.org"]` or `[ {our new terms}, "http://schema.org"]`....

With that amendment, I'm in favor of either A or C for the arguments mentioned above. In terms of existing works, A seems to be already commonplace in the ActivityPub...

:+1: but considering this changes the URI (from `https://codemeta.github.io/terms/maintainer` to `http://schema.org/maintainer`), Morane and I decided to postpone this to v4.0 as v3.0 won't have breaking changes in the context.

yes, this would allow `Organization`. It already allows an array of `Person`s, as any property allowing `X` also allows arrays of `X`.

It's not yet adopted by schema.org. It's not necessarily an issue but we haven't decided if these are acceptable for Codemeta (AFAIK) Additionally, this PR needs to be updated to...