Deployed as well.

Completely agree :)

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

The [1] part has landed within the deposit (server side).
So it's now possible to update the associated metadata to a deposit which is done.

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

Here is the document on which we based this summary

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

I have made a survey of the existing code to ensure what I think happens in the
deposit is correct. TL; DR, it is!

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='...)

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)?

In T2312#47921, @moranegg wrote:

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).

This way, the xml with metadata has a section where the identified artifact is mentioned:

Reference a snapshot, revision or release:

With ${type} in {snp (snapshot), rev (revision), rel (release) }:
<swh:deposit>
  <swh:reference>
    <swh:object id="swh:1:${type}:aaaaaaaaaaaaaa..."/>
  </swh:reference>
</swh:deposit>

We need to add to the list of types: directory and content

The possibility to deposit metadata on an origin should be implemented as well, but is not suited for institutional repositories (e.g HAL).
Reference an origin:

<swh:deposit>
  <swh:reference>
    <swh:origin url="https://github.com/user/repo"/>
  </swh:reference>
</swh:deposit>

This specs fits the POST of a new deposit in SWORD and is described in the SWORD v2 documentation (6.3.3. Creating a Resource with an Atom Entry)

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).

That's true if you consider the graph sub-dag to be the Resource. I assumed at Resource to be the deposit itself; but re-reading the SWORDv2 spec, it's not obvious which one is the right interpretation.

After a talk with Bruno and Yannick on HAL, they say that depositing metadata is: 6.5.2. Replacing the Metadata of a Resource
because the resource already exists on SWH and this should be a PUT of new (maybe new from scratch) metadata on an existing identifier (SWHID).

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.

Options I see:

@vlorentz :

serialization format: @type is missing

Although, it might be challenging to do so, since the metadata deposit requires a SWHID and the process that follows is quite different from the deposit.