Arfon Smith
Arfon Smith
/ cc @tarleb for visibility based on our discussions earlier this week.
> @arfon ???
:+1: This seems like a good addition for situations where the issue tracker isn't the same as the `codeRepository`
This feels like a subset of `documentation` to me, so my comment in https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/issues/245#issuecomment-852033538 applies here also. I'm not sure this should be added.
> Personally I am tempted to drop the codemeta term entirely, and stick with the schema.org vocabulary where we have only softwareRequirements. The metadata provider can then interpret that as...
> Schema.org also has the notion of a http://schema.org/Review object, which is itself a creative work and thus has an author of the review (i.e. the reviewer). This might look...
:+1: to the more readable `continuousIntegration`.
> Another option is to have both metadata properties (which are different). My vote would be to try and standardize on `documentation` and drop `buildInstructions` in the long run for...
> @arfon why is a limited vocabulary a plus? I think that it's better to have a comprehensive vocabulary rather than incomplete one. E.g., schema.org is quite big and it...
> @arfon we can start with these two types (which I think are sufficiently different, as one is how to build the program, and the other may be seen more...