subject:"Re\: \[GRASS\-dev\] \[release planning\] Enable Zenodo before 7.8.6 and 8.0.0"

Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] Enable Zenodo before 7.8.6 and 8.0.0

2021-08-11 Thread Peter Löwe

Hi Vaclav, GRASS devs,

the MOSS project has successfully adopted a new Zenodo-related feature, which might simplify also the open access publishing of GRASS 7.8.6 and 8.0.0 via Zenodo.

- An additional file called ".zenodo.json" was added to the top level directory of the github repo of MOSS.

- This file (https://github.com/OSGeo/MOSS/blob/main/.zenodo.json) contains structured information about the project author and the developer team, but also maintainers with their specific roles. Individual ORCID IDs can be included.

- The general description how to set the webhooks connecting github and Zenodo (https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/) remains the same.

- New: Once a new release is done in github, Zenodo will harvest all metadata provided in .zenodo.json and will update the "cite as" section of the Zenodo landing page accordingly (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5140319)

- This is a significant improvement. Until now, only the names of the owners of the github repo and the Zenodo account were shown, which is inaccurate in most cases.

- Technical information about the JSON Schema followed by the ".zenodo.json" file is at https://zenodo.org/schemas/deposits/records/legacyrecord.json and is documented in the Zenodo developer docs at https://developers.zenodo.org/?python#deposit-metadata.

Best,

Peter

Gesendet: Sonntag, 06. Juni 2021 um 05:33 Uhr
Von: "Vaclav Petras"
An: "Peter Löwe"
Cc: "grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org"
Betreff: Re: Re: [release planning] Enable Zenodo before 7.8.6 and 8.0.0

Hi Peter, all, thanks for the answers. I have more questions assuming that's okay.

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:57 AM Peter Löwe wrote:

==> the CodeMeta-Project is currenlty pushing software citation standards: https://codemeta.github.io/

Thanks. The roles there seem to be more clear. Any opinion on CodeMata versus CFF (see also below)?

BTW, ways to retro-provide DOI versioning for previous GRASS releases would be an rewarding topic to discuss with Data Cite (the DOI infrastructure community).

Any opinions on how useful this is? We want a good archive of old versions, but does someone need DOIs for old releases?

==> This depends on wether the community wants to give due credit by citation to the persons which were involved in the previous releases.

Currently, the author list maintained in the source code is cumulative as far as I know, so old authors are still included as authors, so only use cases for that would be citing old releases in paper or by the new versions of software software. None seem likely to me. What do you think?

Any suggestions on includings DOI into source code? It seems to me that you can only use the generic/concept one and tell people to get the recent one. I didn't figure out the DOI reservation for GitHub repos.

Rather than where to put it - although that's important, too - my question is about which DOI? The main one everywhere or somehow try to put there the version specific one if that's even possible. It seems to me that the main DOI is the only feasible option.

==> A JSON file could be included. This way, the information is both readable for humans and automated access: https://codemeta.github.io/codemeta-generator/

I was thinking about the Citation File Format as I have seen it used quite a bit. Any opinions on that?

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] Enable Zenodo before 7.8.6 and 8.0.0

2021-06-08 Thread Peter Löwe

Hi Vaclav, all,

maybe helpful:

The transient MOSS repo has been updated for CFF and codemeta.json:

https://github.com/ploewe/MOSS

The online CFF-generator didn't accept some of the attributes. Doublechecking of the output is recommended.

Further, we hijacked the CFF affiliation tag to include MARC relator/ role terms (https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html), like the R community has done:

https://r-pkgs.org/description.html

"... A three letter code specifying the role. There are four important roles:

cre: the creator or maintainer, the person you should bother if you have problems.

aut: authors, those who have made significant contributions to the package.

ctb: contributors, those who have made smaller contributions, like patches.

cph: copyright holder. This is used if the copyright is held by someone other than the author, typically a company (i.e. the author’s employer).

..."

I will talk to the software citation folks to see how this is perceived.