-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Aggregation of software in groups #10
Labels
enhancement
New feature or request
Comments
proycon
added a commit
to proycon/codemetapy
that referenced
this issue
Nov 7, 2022
proycon
added a commit
to CLARIAH/tool-discovery
that referenced
this issue
Nov 7, 2022
… 'suite' (whatever that means) (proycon/codemeta-harvester#10)
proycon
added a commit
to proycon/codemetapy
that referenced
this issue
Nov 9, 2022
proycon
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 9, 2022
Implemented and released |
Repository owner
moved this from In Progress
to Done
in CLARIAH+ Shared Service: FAIR Tool Discovery
Nov 9, 2022
proycon
added a commit
to proycon/codemeta2html
that referenced
this issue
May 6, 2023
proycon
added a commit
to proycon/codemeta2html
that referenced
this issue
May 6, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Codemeta describes software at the
schema:SoftwareSourceCode
level. These constitute the units in the index of our html visualisation (via codemetapy & codemeta-server, c.f. https://tools.dev.clariah.nl). Additionally, we already offer a services view on the data that puts theschema:targetProduct
central when it is aschema:WebApplication
.The need for more aggregation was expressed. There may be a software project that consists of various
schema:SoftwareSourceCode
entries, for instance one being a CLI tool, one a web application layer around the tool, and one a Python binding. It can be said that these are all components of some higher-order software project. Ideally, the dependency relations (schema:softwareRequirements
) make it explicit that the components are related. But extracting this automatically and automatically determining the clusters of such software projects is not always feasible.To keep the aggregation as simple as possible, we can reuse the existing schema:applicationSuite property, which takes a simple textual value of the name of the software suite that unites the components. In the html index, tools in the same suite will then be grouped together under the appropriate header. (If a tool belongs to multiple application suites, it will be rendered multiple times in the index).
Given the issues in automating this. This clustering is a manual effort and the tool source registry plays a role here, a simple
group
key can be added to the YAML entries in the tool source registry. The harvester will translate it toschema:applicationSuite
and propagate it to the actual metadata. So whereas software metadata is by definition under the authorship of the developers themselves, this suite property may be expressed at the level of the source registry (though the authors may also express it themselves), giving the tool registry providers have a (final) say in how participating software is grouped. I think that is a fair solution since it's also up to the tool registry provider to decide what tools participate in his/her registry in the first place.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: