Let crosswalk authors supply information specific to their crosswalk?

[sdruskat]

In #263 I had posted some questions re intended audience for the crosswalk, and some more detailed questions.

If we assume mostly human users (as machine-actionability is hard to achieve (https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/pull/263#issuecomment-905061939)), would it perhaps make sense to add a metadata column to the CSV to specify contacts for the single format crosswalk authors, or document this in another way, so that users can get in touch with them in case of issues? Perhaps a README of sorts per crosswalk (or one for all) where authors can note down explanations for specific fields and more general info about what the crosswalk assumes?

[moranegg]

Very good remark. We do want to lake the mappings more machine actionable and FAIR :-)

We might introduce the SSSOM format in the coming months.

[sdruskat]

Had a brief look at SSSOM (you learn something new every day), and it seems like a good choice. The mapping_cardinality feature will definitely help with describing the model relationships between CFF & CodeMeta better :).