Software requires descriptive metadata to support indexing, search and discoverability.
Domain-agnostic comments
There are many forms of guidance and community standards for structuring development metadata, such as RepoStatus, Software Release Practice HOWTO, Make a README, and AboutCode. It is still difficult to check all descriptive metadata around development and status as it is often provided in an unstructured form; machine-readable semantic metadata schema are available but not widely used for this purpose (e.g. RepoStatus, Semantic Versioning) or language specific (e.g. Trove Classifiers).
CESSDA comments
Some of this metadata is machine readable but requires interpretation. For CESSDA, active status would be defined as there
being a recent release (release date) and that it is maintained (recent commits).
Context
F2: Software is described with rich metadata.
R1: Software is described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.
R3: Software meets domain-relevant community standards.
Possible Implementation
domain-agnostic
requirements
Software source code, Software identifier
method
Check if the software includes its own software identifier, and that the identifier resolves to that software.
essential
Does the software include an identifier in the README or citation file?
important
Does the identifier resolve to the same instance of the software?
useful
n/a
CESSDA
requirements
Software source code in repository
method
Check the README and CHANGELOG files for development status indicators
essential
The README and CHANGELOG must be up to date. The README contains release details, version details, links to documentation as described in the EURISE Network Technical Reference.
important
Version numbering follows Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 and pre-release versions may be denoted by appending a hyphen and a series of dot separated identifiers immediately following the patch version
karacolada
commented
1 month ago
D5.2, p15+p25
Detailed Description
Software requires descriptive metadata to support indexing, search and discoverability.
Domain-agnostic comments
There are many forms of guidance and community standards for structuring development metadata, such as RepoStatus, Software Release Practice HOWTO, Make a README, and AboutCode. It is still difficult to check all descriptive metadata around development and status as it is often provided in an unstructured form; machine-readable semantic metadata schema are available but not widely used for this purpose (e.g. RepoStatus, Semantic Versioning) or language specific (e.g. Trove Classifiers).
CESSDA comments
Some of this metadata is machine readable but requires interpretation. For CESSDA, active status would be defined as there being a recent release (release date) and that it is maintained (recent commits).
Context
F2: Software is described with rich metadata. R1: Software is described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes. R3: Software meets domain-relevant community standards.
Possible Implementation
domain-agnostic
CESSDA