-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 493
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Include CodeMeta schema out of the box #7844
Comments
… watermark helptext IQSS#7844
… watermark helptext IQSS#7844
- Add missing displayOrder values - Fix missing type for software requirements - Avoid splitting up compound fields too much, otherwise data is not exportable to schema.org or CodeMeta JSON-LD without special handling (IQSS#7856) - Tweak order - Tweak descriptions and examples - Fix whitespaces and line endings
With the merge of computational workflow metadata considered experimental, move CodeMeta there, too.
…SS#7844 As the citation block already contains a compound field "software" with both "softwareName" and "softwareVersion", meant to describe software used to create the dataset, this name conflict must be resolved. By renaming to "codeVersion", the semantic is not changed, as this metadata block is about describing software deposits. As the termURI is explicitly set to "schema.org/softwareVersion" it remains compatible with OAI-ORE and other linked data usages. A future exporter for CodeMeta might require special attention for this field.
…scriptions IQSS#7844 A slight rephrasing should make it easier to understand what is expected as content for these metadata fields.
Adding the fields of the CodeMeta block to the Solr schema to enable quick usage of the fields (despite being flagged experimental in the guides).
Found this in the global backlog today in the sprints tab. |
Right, not just associated but closes. So merging the PR closed the issue. |
Got it. Get it. :) This represents one of those corner cases from my point of view of tracking our progress. The dev team got the PR, sized it and worked it. However, there was also an issue associated with it (This issue). It confused me when it popped up after the fact on my radar. Thinking out loud, but I'm thinking that since we didn't take this issue into account in the planning, let's not insert it later in the tracking process by adding the Sprint label. The two will still remain associated by the issue/PR relationship. This raises another thing too. If someone other than me sets that label arbitrarily it will make the tracking harder. I'm not sure at this point how to make everyone aware not to do that. ^^ This all assumes that the issue and the PR were not both in the backlog at the same time. That represents I guess another corner case to the backlog grooming. Still - for now, I'll remove this issue from the backlog project and call it done. |
Resulting from the Software, Workflows & Containers Working Group discussions, we want to implement different changes within the Dataverse software.
A first low hanging fruit is the addition of the CodeMeta metadata schema for scientific software. Providing it out-of-the-box for any (new) Dataverse installation and adding to existing instances with upstream support greatly enhances Dataverse. This issue has none to low impact on software development resources.
A solution involves at least:
This might involve in this first step or as aftermath little code contributions to enable for #6289.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: