clarifying sigmf compliance language

[jacobagilbert]

First pass at expanding language surrounding what "SigMF compliance" means.

Closes #189

[bhilburn]

This is awesome. Thank you for taking a shot at #189. After reading this, a few thoughts:

First, I think we actually have three areas of compliance:

• SigMF schema
• SigMF Recordings
• SigMF Applications

Compliance with the schema means that the metadata format complies, regardless of how it is stored. I think this is actually what is currently written as compliance for "Datasets"

Compliance as a Recording specifies what the data must look like on-disk. You could, for example, have SigMF schema compliance but not Recording compliance if your metadata is compliant but stored in a database instead of a flat file.

Finally there is application compliance.

Thoughts?

[jacobagilbert]

Makes sense. Can we call it Metadata compliance for consistency?

I'll add a recording section, which I believe also requires schema/metadata compliance.

[jacobagilbert]

@bhilburn I made some updates to this; I'm curious if this is inline with your thinking.

[jacobagilbert]

Rebased and ready to merge. @bhilburn still OK w/ this?

[bhilburn]

The primary thing I think we're missing here is Collections, which doesn't appear anywhere. Thoughts on best way to handle that?

[bhilburn]

Looks great, @jacobagilbert. Love the most recent edition 👍