Stian Soiland-Reyes

@jmfernandez, at the moment the `cwltool` version 2.0.20200224214940 or later supports the abstract `Operation` with `cwlVersion: v1.2.0-dev1` ([example](https://github.com/common-workflow-language/cwl-v1.2/blob/master/tests/operation.cwl)) - this will be included in `v1.2`. This will let both variants...

I think all the data entities in `hasPart` should also be represented in the `@graph` - do you agree @ptsefton ?

Depending on #49 the `workflow-0.2.0/ro-crate-metadata.jsonld` example needs quite a bit of update. You are right in that there should be `author` (and not `creator`) in the example. I also think...

I think this example should just show what RO-Crate mandate or mentions already in text. For the context I agree, because now it's deliberately written to be easy to parse...

If we agree we allow some implicit properties like `creator` and `license` to apply to a research object folder "root folder" (?) or on a directory, then yes, we should...

dc350427c4d612f47d41d105d283a8196705e987 expands a bit on `license` recursiveness, but not for folders.

Example descriptions generated by [extract-dockerfile](https://github.com/openbases/extract-dockerfile) From a `Dockerfile` we describe a [ContainerRecipe](https://openschemas.github.io/specifications/ContainerRecipe/) (specializes [SoftwareSourceCode](http://schema.org/SoftwareSourceCode) ```json { "@context": "http://www.schema.org", "@type": "ContainerRecipe", "name": "vsoch/salad", "description": "A Dockerfile build recipe", "containerImage": "gliderlabs/alpine:3.4", "labels":...

Also related: [Schema Playground](https://discovery.biothings.io) (link dead for now?) by @chunleiwu et al. — see [presentation](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qkoKOl7ifeAKGQmw_CAt7p79zSdfRZWh9bEUk13hyEY/edit#slide=id.g5f92ebde49_0_0)

As this is a relationship to be generated between values of `first_output` and `second_output`, I think some kind of template or expression? JSON-LD with $expansions ```yaml cwlprov:relationship: { "@id": "$second_output",...

OK, in 036af7c78a3e1c5125009ae05dbdb853afca6790 I try to sketch out how this can be recorded as templates in the CWL, and then add these to the PROV. There is an issue in...