Identifying CodeMeta files on GitHub

Just a quick question, I’ve tried searching for CodeMeta files on GitHub recently, and just wanted to confirm that every valid CodeMeta file would a) have to be called codemeta.json and b) include the following string (catching schemas v1 and v2):

https://doi.org/10.5063/schema/codemeta

In my (limited) experience, properly identifying files via GitHub code search API isn’t fool-proof, so I want to make sure that I’m getting the correct files.

Thanks!

[mbjones]

Just for clarity, the syntax for the context file namespace is:

https://doi.org/10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0

And it seems to be resolving fine and fast now. So I would recommend that over the purl at this point. And definitely version 2,0 and not the early versions.

Matt

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Carl Boettiger [e-mail] wrote:

@sdruskat https://github.com/sdruskat Good questions.

a) Yes b) No.

Re b),

The DOI URL would still work with either http or version or the dx.doi.org version as well. As long as these resolve, they are still valid.

Technically the context file does not need to be a link at all, but could literally embed the codemeta context file at the top of a codemeta document. Obviously this is verbose, but from the JSON-LD point it’s semantically equivalent, and has the practical advantage of allowing the JSON-LD algorithms to be applied without a network connection available.

Most of the terms in v2 can be expressed in pure schema.org, so it’s possible a codemeta.json file will declare the context simply as http://schema.org.

Also, as per #125 https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/issues/125, I’ve continually had issues with the DataCite content negotiation servers being too slow to successfully use the DOI-based schema, particularly when traffic is high. To avoid this, there’s a fall back url at http://purl.org/codemeta/2.0. I believe the performance issues we had throughout last year have largely been resolved now though and the DOI-based resolution should work.

There aren’t any technically required fields, but I would expect a “@type”: “SoftwareSourceCode” field at minimum(?)

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/issues/180#issuecomment-375013210, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuxxyi7VCLCPtLmxNNMRRHdI-b0sKitks5tgoRJgaJpZM4SzUaH .

[cboettig]

looks to be resolved