Not sure what's the expected meaning of this URL, but it should either be the same of codeRepository, or the Software Heritage homepage, as we don't have a homepage for the specific indexer software component (yet).
do we really need this? it's a kinda low-level business detail that I don't think should have any part in advertised metadata about our software products, and that might change in the future
what's the point of this?
Shouldn't we have a tool to update this regularly based on the different metadata we already have spread across the repository (setup.py, debian/control, debian/copyright, debian/changelog, git tag, etc...)?
it works as is but https://www.softwareheritage.org sounds better :)
What's the difference with the "version" key?
Actually this url is the only url linking this revision to the origin on SWH
we should want people to give the github url (even if it is a mirror) because with the github url we can find the whole tree in our archive.
we can put both urls as url or as codeRepository.
the github one serves better with our linked data challenge.
We don't need metadata- that's the point.
This is an example to what we would like to find about other projects/software artifacts.
The problem might occur if we don't remove it when the funding is over.
you are right!
If we want to provide the persistent solution for software
The main question is, how do we want others to "use" SWH, here I thought to put it as a relatedLink but you are right it is wrong
So i will remove it, but I think we should show how we want to be used and push our way in...
If that's the problem you're trying to fix, than the right fix is adding to the list of origins that we track the URLs of our repos—which would be a good thing in general (see T807 which I've just submitted).