Upstream EarthCube web presence

[jedbrown]

In short, everything under GeoCODES is quite out of date and not written for an outsider. The person asking "how can EarthCube help my research" doesn't care about cryptic project naming ("The evolution of the P418 Pilot Project, GeoCODES is an emerging resource discovery platform comprised of intuitive web-based tools, REST APIs, and Python, R, and MATLAB notebook integration for a variety of services. ") or what technologies underlie the project. Better for the front to be a search box or screen GIF of doing something, with links for how to integrate in Python et al, to answer "what does this do and where can I use it?"

But first, "Beta Release of Core Features Coming Summer 2019!" makes the project look abandoned.

The P419 page has a 404 presentation and a link to a seemingly-unused GitHub organization.

[fils]

@jedbrown Thank you very much for taking time to put in an issue. Always appreciated.

I'll forward your comments on to the current management group for the EarthCube web site as I don't run the EarthCube web site nor was I involved in the "GeoCODES" branding. That came after P418/419.

The P419 repo was created for us but never used as we continued work in the P418 repositories or in some ESIP repositories. They should not have linked to those but it looks like they did.

Also, current activity has evolved can be found in two main areas: Vocabulary work: https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org Tool work: https://gleaner.io

This repository is really deprecated and I will update it as such.

It should be noted that these projects are mostly focused on data repositories that serve the research community. I am particularly excited about some of the work we are doing in the area of shape graphs and I hope this will be a place where we can more directly engage the science community to reflect their needs in machine readable manner.

I notice several of these repositories should be marked deprecated or otherwise redirected to the current work so I will try and update them later today as well.

Again, thanks for your comments and if there is anything else I can do you for you let me know.

Doug

[craig-willis]

Thank you @jedbrown and @fils.

I am part of the new ECO technical team. As you may know, we are actively working on plans for next steps with many of the GeoCODES components including updating the documentation and web presence, so @jedbrown your feedback is very helpful.

We are proposing to use the https://github.com/earthcube organization for repositories (including forks) related to the core components that will be maintained/updated by the ECO group going forward. We are also proposing to use https://github.com/earthcube-incubator to consolidate community repositories for projects that are maintained by the community and don't already have a home.

@fils I understand that you are still actively working on the Gleaner components and would be interested in your thoughts on how to move ahead. Would you be open to moving those repositories to the earthcube or earthcube-incubator organizations -- or perhaps you had other plans?

We've also just created the https://github.com/earthcube/earthcube repository as a catch all issues like this one.

Any further feedback welcome.

[fils]

@craig-willis

Given they were NSF funded works.... it would be a bit cheeky for me to protest. ;) I find the new location more logically anyway, so happy to have them moved and work in the new upstream repo there.

Given that so many people might still have the old location marked or that it might be in presentations or reports, would there be some mechanism we could use to redirect the old URL to the new? I don't know if GitHub has such a system or not. Perhaps "archive" the old repo with a note in the top level README to the new location?

That issue is not enough to block anything, just if there is someway to guide people to the current work that would be good. I think that is one issue Jed ran into with pointers to repo's that were never even used and were empty.

[craig-willis]

Thanks, @fils. It's a good point that if we do migrate to a separate organization we need to ensure not to leave dead links around. Your idea of "archiving" the current repo (and org) with clear documentation at the top of each seems like a good approach.

We also want to make sure that folks working on these components are on board with this move, so please do protest.

[fils]

@craig-willis a quick search makes it look like this is something GitHUb addresses.

https://github.blog/2013-05-16-repository-redirects-are-here/ (old, 2013.. so there might be newer policies) However, this is all new to me so I'm only guessing at best paths inside GitHub for this.

So hopefully we could simply move the repos from one org to another? I'm perfectly fine with the move and I think it will give us a chance to prune a bit anyway. There were really too many repos I feel and it diluted some of the work. I'd recommend chatting with @ashepherd about the p418Voc dir and what to do with it since most of his work has migrated to the ESIP science on schema repo.

For me, the gleaner and fence repos are really the only active ones and I'd was about to move the tangram work into it's own repo but I would wait and do it in the new home if it's of interest for the new EarthCube office to host (it's a spin out from the gleaner code base).

Appreciate your openness to "protest" but I really don't have one. :)

[jedbrown]

I think it'd be more appropriate to use transfer a repository to the EarthCube organization.

[ashepherd]

I just need to move p419voctemporal and p419dcatservices repo content to science-on-schema.org

[craig-willis]

Thanks all. I don't expect we'll act on any migration until after the new year and after others have had the chance to weigh in on the proposal. I'll create any related issues on the earthcube organization for tracking and we can coordinate there.

[smrgeoinfo]

@ashepherd -- it looks like the p419voctemporal and p419dcatservices have been moved?

[ashepherd]

Hey @smrgeoinfo , I just forked them i case they do move. My forks are here: https://github.com/ashepherd/p419dcatservices https://github.com/ashepherd/p419voctemporal

The originals are here: https://github.com/earthcubearchitecture-project418/p419voctemporal https://github.com/earthcubearchitecture-project418/p419dcatservices

And i've updated the geoschemas.org Time extension page: https://geoschemas.org/extensions/temporal.html to be inline with the p419voctemporal work (and since the MaGIC repository is using it).

[smrgeoinfo]

Adam—looks like the repo content from p419dcatservices and p419voctemporal could go to science-on-schema.org? From our discussions, I am thinking that what will go in EarthCube Github repos will be for projects/products that are ‘adopted/recommended’ ( https://github.com/earthcube https://github.com/earthcube/{product}, or in projects that are in development by the community and don't already have a home. ( https://github.com/earthcube-incubator https://github.com/earthcube-incubator ), see https://github.com/earthcube/earthcube/issues/1 https://github.com/earthcube/earthcube/issues/1 . The schema.org discussions could have a home in https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org because they should involve a wider community including but not limited to EarthCube.

Thoughts?

steve

[ashepherd]

agreed, i'll make some issues there to pull it over.

[smrgeoinfo]

Thanks!