docs

3 files changed, 30 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 886443ab..ea03c0a5 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ This is just a concept for now; see [rfc](./rfc).
 
 ## Python Prototype
 
-Use `pipenv` (which you can install with `pip`):
+Use `pipenv` (which you can install with `pip`).
 
     pipenv shell
+    python3 fatcat/api.py
diff --git a/plan.txt b/plan.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b7f05277
--- /dev/null
+++ b/plan.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+
+backend/api:
+- first-rev schema
+- create work, release, etc
+- get by ID
+
+tooling:
+- query tool: by fc id, doi/issn/etc
+
+importers:
+- crossref
+- pubmed
+- dblp
+- "norwegian" journal list
+- scihub hash list
+- author list?
+
+webface:
+- creators and editors for:
+    works
+    releases
+    files
+    people
+    containers
diff --git a/rfc.md b/rfc.md
index 1b63a31a..9f807ec2 100644
--- a/rfc.md
+++ b/rfc.md
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ are:
         <found at> URLs
         <held-at> institution <with> accession
 
-    creator
+    contributor
         name
         <has> aliases
         <has> affiliation <for> date span
@@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ Should `identifier` and `citation` be their own entities, referencing other
 entities by UUID instead of by revision? This could save a ton of database
 space and chunder.
 
-Should creator/author contact information be retained? It could be very useful
-for disambiguation, but we don't want to build a huge database for spammers or
-"innovative" start-up marketing.
+Should contributor/author contact information be retained? It could be very
+useful for disambiguation, but we don't want to build a huge database for
+spammers or "innovative" start-up marketing.
 
 Would general purpose SQL databases like Postgres or MySQL scale well enough
 told hold several tables with billions of entries? Right from the start there