Pointing to an archived copy of the source code repository isn't the same as the archived copy of the repository.
SWH archive url -> well formatted for acceptance

Completely agree :)

This task will take us one step towards a searchable archive :-)

A reference to AtomPub protocol which is used with SWORD:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/x-atompp1-pdf.pdf

Reviewed and opened the HAL issue (which is on a closed forge, so most of you can't open):
https://gitlab.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ccsd/hal/-/issues/302

Redirection should be to https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-model/persistent-identifiers.html

I think we can resolve this task as we agreed on staying with the xml format for the metadata-only deposit.

Actually, I prefer A2, to make the distinction between origins (identified by an URL, <swh:origin url=...) and objects (identified by a SWHID, <swh:object swhid='...)

Adding this link to the case study:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZIBvENaY-atx9PvoOKUb9setQTERV2rmLvpMrJd2e0/edit?usp=sharing

I prefer A2 as well.

Actually, I prefer A2, to make the distinction between origins (identified by an URL, <swh:origin url=...) and objects (identified by a SWHID, <swh:object swhid='...)

We can use option A1, which allows extending to option C in the future if the need araises (but I doubt it will)

I see we have three-four options:

In T2312#48024, @ardumont wrote:

I don't recall what the conclusion was about the proposal of <swh:swhid>$actual_swid</swh:swhid> which i found simpler and clearer.

I don't recall what the conclusion was about the proposal of <swh:swhid>$actual_swid</swh:swhid> which i found simpler and clearer.
(I have no clue if that proposal is irrelevant or not)

I think we would want to "mention" SWHIDs there, by replacing <swh:object id=" with either <swh:swhid id=" or <swh:object swhid=" (weak preference for the latter)

@vlorentz can you please review the naming and the choice of the tag with or without the attribute (e.g id, url)?

No objections on my side.

After this morning's meeting with @vlorentz and @ardumont:
We will keep the metadata-only deposit specs with the idea of a separate namespace swh for which we need to write the schema (not sure we have that).

I've no specific advice here, as I wasn't aware that shorturl/SLUG existed, so I don't know where it might be used.
As a general comment, using such a "memorable" shorturl for a blog post doesn't seem like a good idea, as blog posts age pretty quickly.
So I'm in favor of removing it, but don't know how to evaluate the impact of doing so.
(For what is worth: I don't think that using it as a URI in the context you need it in is incompatible with having it being a valid URL pointing to something else, but I agree it would be weird, because some people will load it in their browsers for trying it out.)

Well we can't change that redirection, it may be linked by other documents

It's linking to a blog post, it's not even the formal documentation..
There is also the notion of persistence.

The current redirection is fine IMO

So should we have a redirection to the SWHID docs on https://softwareheritage.org/swhid or use the current link?

In T2527#47771, @moranegg wrote:

The resolver for SWHIDs can be https://archive.softwareheritage.org/ so should it be the value of PropertyID or the one you have written: https://softwareheritage.org/swhid?

The resolver for SWHIDs can be https://archive.softwareheritage.org/ so should it be the value of PropertyID or the one you have written: https://softwareheritage.org/swhid?
The same is with HAL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ adding the HAL-ID to the end resolves the identifier.
So is that correct?

{
...
"identifier": [
	{
	  "@type": "PropertyValue",
	  "propertyID": "https://archive.softwareheritage.org/",
	  "value": "swh:1:dir:9f85c8f51850028a9fbc03463c74de29a2d24c6c"
	},
    {
	  "@type": "PropertyValue",
	  "propertyID": "https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/",
	  "value": "hal-02071874"
    }        
],
...
}

or

{
...
"identifier": [
	{
	  "@type": "PropertyValue",
	  "propertyID": "https://archive.softwareheritage.org/SWHID",
	  "value": "swh:1:dir:9f85c8f51850028a9fbc03463c74de29a2d24c6c"
	},
    {
	  "@type": "PropertyValue",
	  "propertyID": "https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/HAL-ID",
	  "value": "hal-02071874"
    }        
],
...
}

Yeah, the rdf-translator uses custom attributes (in the XHTML namespace, which I guess is a mistake, but that's fixable by creating our own namespace or finding one that already does it)

DublinCore hasn't enough properties to answer our software properties requirements.

Nitpick, but I'd rather use URIs as propertyID, as it is recommended by schema.org (avoids name clashes, auto-documenting, etc.). eg. https://softwareheritage.org/swhid instead of SWHID. I don't have a good one that is resolvable for IdHAL, but we could decide on https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/idhal or https://archives-ouvertes.fr/idhal even if they are not

Options I see:

@vlorentz :

serialization format: @type is missing

List of comments from this collaborative document: https://hackmd.io/g_6J8cBETBi66R9AvPAGOA

@vlorentz can we say that by using both CodeMeta and schema.org namespaces, we can use the roles in the metadata of a deposit?

We need to review this task with the current workflows.