Technical issues around GitHub-based content management (placeholder)

[joncison]

From @joncison on December 18, 2018 13:42

Use this thread to list (refer to) specific actions, and for general technical discussion, around the mooted GitHub-based content management architecture (see https://github.com/bio-tools/biotoolsRegistry/issues/355 and https://github.com/bio-tools/biotoolsRegistry/issues/242)

Copied from original issue: bio-tools/biotoolsRegistry#399

[joncison]

List of issues

Use this comment to list (refer to) issues only. Misc. concerns & solutions discussed mostly with @bgruening, @hmenager and @hansioan thus far:

• entry ownership / editing rights (preservation of) [#3]
• managing the curation maintenance burden (pull requests) [#4]
• preserving full-strength validation & error reporting [#5]
• UI for entry creation, editing and registration with seamless GitHub integration [#6]
• data serialisation and transformation [#7]
• bio.tools database update & refactoring mechanism [#8]
• Information mapping, gap analysis & schema revision [#9]
• curation work to assure all entries give "canonical" tool descriptions [#10)
• data integration: ensuring coverage in bio.tools [#11]
• data integration: augmenting bio.tools [#12]

[joncison]

hey @ypriverol - here's the (pinned) issue that is simply a list of threads (maintained in comment of 25 Jan) around the integration of tools metadata - currently just from my/bio.tools perspective. I agree the consideration of I/O/parameters is important, please feel free to add that (or anything else)