search

CLARIAH / clariah-plus

This is the project planning repository for the CLARIAH-PLUS project. It groups all technical documents and discussions pertaining to CLARIAH-PLUS in a central place and should facilitate findability, transparency and project planning, for the project as a whole.
9 stars 6 forks source link

Not all Software Metadata Requirements are relevant for the cultural heritage domain #140

Open ddeboer opened 1 year ago

ddeboer commented 1 year ago

@proycon Some Software Metadata Requirements seem to be geared more towards scientific than cultural heritage tools (such as NDE is developing). For example when validating one of our tools, we get:

2. Info: Reference publications *SHOULD* be expressed (This is missing in the metadata)
3. Info: The funder *SHOULD* be acknowledged (This is missing in the metadata)
4. Info: A research domain *SHOULD* be expressed as a category using the NWO Research Fields vocabulary (This is missing in the metadata)

While I don’t know the details of how you calculate the star rating, these three requirements don’t really make sense for it. Are SHOULDs completely optional or still part of the rating? (Sorry if you already documented this somewhere and I missed it.)

And should we amend requirement 17 to read ‘if applicable’?

proycon commented 1 year ago

While I don’t know the details of how you calculate the star rating, these three requirements don’t really make sense for it. Are SHOULDs completely optional or still part of the rating? (Sorry if you already documented this somewhere and I missed it.)

The computatation is debatable. At least all MUSTs must be satisfied (they produce a violation), for SHOULDs it is a mixed bag, some produce warnings (which should be resolved if you want an official validation 'pass') and some produce info notices like the ones you got. MAYs always produce info notices. For a successful validation you need to resolve the Violations and Warnings only. The info notices provide hints to improve it but if you have good reason not to provide something, then that is perfectly fine and you can still attain a 4/5 rating. (5 really means perfection, no info notices, and is rare, and not something to obsess about either)

  1. Info: The funder SHOULD be acknowledged (This is missing in the metadata)

Doesn't NDE have a funder that can be acknowledged? If not, then just leave it out yes.

  1. Info: Reference publications SHOULD be expressed (This is missing in the metadata)

Yep, this happens often, many tools don't have proper publications.

Perhaps we need to amend both these points with 'if any/applicable'.

And should we amend requirement 17 to read ‘if applicable’?

Yes, that might be best indeed.