Update deposit: `swhid` MUST exist in archive for a metadata-only deposit
Closed, MigratedEdits Locked
Actions

Assigned To

Authored By

	moranegg
	Jan 7 2021, 3:06 PM

Description

**edited
The decision is clear to accept only SWHIDs that are already in the archive.

In the metadata-only deposit a swhid is required.
The existence of the swhid in the archive, on the other hand, is only recommended (with SHOULD in the specs).

With the option to potentially give metadata on an object that isn't in the archive, we open the door to new possibilities but also to human errors.

Should we restrict the deposit to existing swhids, or should we trust the deposit clients that they used the exact swhid they intended to use?

Revisions and Commits

rDDEP Push deposit
	D5231	rDDEPc4972584f176 Check a SWHID exists in the archive before accepting a metadata-only deposit
rSPSITE puppet-swh-site
	D5245	rSPSITE81a7a36c7ded swh-deposit: Configure access to the graph storage

Related Objects
Search...

Status	Assigned	Task
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2685 Test update of deposit with metadata-only in integration tests
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2344 Build a connector for software deposit via Zenodo/InvenioRDM
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2538 Add new option for the CLI swh-deposit for the metadata-only deposit
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T1021 SWORD deposit of metadata about an existing SWH object
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2537 Extend new deposit endpoint to support metadata-only deposits
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T3128 Improve deposit integration, management and display
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2540 support the loading of metadata-only deposits in the metadata storage
Migrated	gitlab-migration	T2942 Update deposit: `swhid` MUST exist in archive for a metadata-only deposit

Event Timeline

moranegg triaged this task as High priority.Jan 7 2021, 3:06 PM

moranegg created this task.

moranegg updated the task description. (Show Details)

moranegg added a parent task: T2540: support the loading of metadata-only deposits in the metadata storage.

My answer is a very emphatic YES.

There are many reasons for this, including avoiding metadata pollution, encouraging people to also deposit content to the archive, and hash collision risks (if we have not archived something, there is no guarantee we will ever use the hash contained in that SWHID for the software artifact that the metadata submitter thinks is referenced by it).

Thank you @zack for the quick response. I agree with you and do prefer archiving metadata for only existing SWHIDs.

In T2942#56223, @zack wrote:

My answer is a very emphatic YES.

There are many reasons for this, including avoiding metadata pollution, encouraging people to also deposit content to the archive, and hash collision risks (if we have not archived something, there is no guarantee we will ever use the hash contained in that SWHID for the software artifact that the metadata submitter thinks is referenced by it).

Absolutely!