Adding first draft of guidelines for bibliographic metadata using the codemeta schema

[gavinpringle]

First draft

Before creating a pull request:

• Please make sure you have checked Contributing Guidelines.
• Please maek sure you have checked Page Style Guidelines and checked for typos and spelling mistakes.
• Is there a related issue for the fix you are providing? If not, please consider adding one.
• If you are changing files in data/ or _includes folder or config.yaml file - please make sure you have discussed this with the maintainers in the relevant issue.

Fixes #issue_number (add the relevant issue number).

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• an entirely new page with guidance on providing bibliographic metat\data following the codemeta schema.

Notes for reviewers:

• provide additional information for the reviewers here (if needed)

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for everse-rsqkit-testing failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	04dac35
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/everse-rsqkit-testing/deploys/6962fa237600e70008105b0a

[gavinpringle]

Adding first draft of new page describing bibliographic metadata using the codemeta schema.

[dgarijo]

But where? on software? On people?

[gavinpringle]

I changed "Add a DOI for long-term reference. Zenodo is a good place to get one" to read "Add a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for the software release itself for long-term citation (e.g., from Zenodo). Ensure ORCID iDs are included for all people", and also changed "Use the Person schema and include Open Researcher and ORCID iDs for authors and contributors." to read "Use the Person schema and include ORCID iDs (the persistent identifier for people) for all authors and contributors".

I'm not sure what you mean by 'where'? If you mean, where does the DOI/ORCID ID go, then I feel it's clear from the example.

[dgarijo]

See comments please

[dgarijo]

@gavinpringle thanks for generating the first draft, sorry it took me a while to come to this. I have a question: This page is on bibliographic metadata. However, it does not state how to use the referencePublication of for a particular software, which is kind of the point, right? Shouldn't do this?
Otherwise I would remove the "bibliographic" part.
I like the example, but I wonder if there is a bit of redundant content with https://everse.software/RSQKit/software_metadata

[gavinpringle]

I've addressed all comments, bar one: i'm unclear about 'But where?'

[gavinpringle]

Addressed the overarching comment I missed, specifically I have now included references to referencePublication

[gavinpringle]

I like the example, but I wonder if there is a bit of redundant content with https://everse.software/RSQKit/software_metadata

Personally, i like my example as the user can quickly copy the text and change the entries accordingly, whereas the content in your given URL is a splash of options that takes time to parse.

[dgarijo]

Thanks for your patience. I detected minor issues in the PR

[dgarijo]

I like the example, but I wonder if there is a bit of redundant content with https://everse.software/RSQKit/software_metadata

Personally, i like my example as the user can quickly copy the text and change the entries accordingly, whereas the content in your given URL is a splash of options that takes time to parse.

In https://everse.software/RSQKit/software_metadata#using-codemeta-to-describe-software on "how to use CodeMeta" the section has a significant overlap with the one proposed here. I agree in having a template to copy paste from, and I like having a dedicated page just to CodeMeta. So I would suggest to just leave this, replacing/conflating some of the content of the other page here. Thoughts?

[gavinpringle]

In https://everse.software/RSQKit/software_metadata#using-codemeta-to-describe-software on "how to use CodeMeta" the section has a significant overlap with the one proposed here. I agree in having a template to copy paste from, and I like having a dedicated page just to CodeMeta. So I would suggest to just leave this, replacing/conflating some of the content of the other page here. Thoughts?

I think what you are suggesting is
a) change the 'software_metadata' page by moving the section entitled "how to use codeMeta" out of the software_metadata page to be within a new page entitled "How to use codeMeta".
b) then we take the text within "How to provide complete bibliographic metadata as a CodeMeta file?" and place that inside the new page "How to use codeMeta".
c) we delete the page "How to provide complete bibliographic metadata as a CodeMeta file?"
d) we rationalise the new page "How to use codeMeta", folding in my text into the existing text and removing repetition.

I'm completely happy for this to happen and I'm happy to do so; however, I feel such a change should be ok-ed by the editorial board.

[dgarijo]

We discussed this in the EB today. There was support for simplifying the software metadata page, so we'll have your proposal as how to use codemeta and then merge the content that exists in the generalist page.
I will review your PR once more and then move in this direction. Thanks!