search

datalad / datalad-metalad

Next generation metadata handling
Other
13 stars 11 forks source link

https://reuse.software/ spec metadata extractor #185

Open ypid opened 3 years ago

ypid commented 3 years ago

What is the problem?

I noticed that you provide a way to specify a license for datasets using RFC822-compliant metadata. I was wondering if this task would not be better offloaded to the dedicated https://reuse.software/ specification and tooling.

What steps will reproduce the problem?

What version of DataLad are you using (run datalad --version)? On what operating system (consider running datalad wtf)?

Is there anything else that would be useful to know in this context?

Have you had any success using DataLad before? (to assess your expertise/prior luck. We would welcome your testimonial additions to https://github.com/datalad/datalad/wiki/Testimonials as well)

Long time git and git-annex user. My main use-case is reproducible execution (datalad run) currently.

yarikoptic commented 3 years ago

Isn't https://reuse.software/ only about copyright/licenses, like dep5 of debian, and thus doesn't include any other metadata like description, etc?

ypid commented 3 years ago

I fixed the issue title that was to unspecific before. Yes, that is also my suggestion. Only use REUSE for the licensing aspect.

bpoldrack commented 3 years ago

At a first glance, addressing this sounds to me more like an additional (and certainly desirable) metadata extractor than a change to the rfc822 extractor.

yarikoptic commented 3 years ago

Adding a dedicated extractor for reuse.software would indeed be useful. But using SPDX license name in the rfc822 would also be useful IMHO.

yarikoptic commented 3 years ago

I will consider this resolved by datalad/datalad#5497

ypid commented 3 years ago

datalad/datalad#5497 is just related to this issue. That is why I linked it. In my eyes datalad/datalad#5497 cannot resolve this issue.

yarikoptic commented 3 years ago

Ok, adjusted title to match what I think it could be. ATM so metadata extractors are "made equal" pretty much, we don't do metadata harmonization. It is up to a user too decide which one to use or develop some harmonizer. I guess it would be for an interested user/developer working with REUSE specification to develop it.