Here is the approved property on Wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6138

This will also be useful for:

• ASCL
• swMath
• OpenAire

Where would you put this type of specs?

I think that @douardda's comments should be resolved in a specs document and not in the current docs.
So I'm opening a task about that, referring to the discussion here [T1344]

Also, I'm not sure why the build is failing.
Can I relaunch a build as a reviewer, or only by changing the diff will the build be relaunched?

Here is the property proposal under discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/SWH_Release_ID

Questions and Answers with the WikiDigi WG (from Toto256):

1. Even thought we identified the release ID to be the most appropriate ID to use in Wikidata, should the property specify it is a release instead of being a generic SWH ID?

As we discussed, it's easier to have a limited scope for a property : it allows for defining constraints, building bots and explaining the purpose.
This doesn't mean we can later add other properties for others ids.

Accepting because I accepted D620

Accepting because I accepted D620

There is no test a case of a revision with multiple 'metadata files' which is an intriguing case - this should be tested before accepting this diff.

Add README or CITATION to data directory with the following:
Matthew B. Jones, Carl Boettiger, Abby Cabunoc Mayes, Arfon Smith, Peter Slaughter, Kyle Niemeyer, Yolanda Gil, Martin Fenner, Krzysztof Nowak, Mark Hahnel, Luke Coy, Alice Allen, Mercè Crosas, Ashley Sands, Neil Chue Hong, Patricia Cruse, Daniel S. Katz, Carole Goble. 2017. CodeMeta: an exchange schema for software metadata. Version 2.0. KNB Data Repository. doi:10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0
swh:1:dir:39c509fd2002f9e531fb4b3a321ceb5e6994e54a;origin=https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta

When using the save code now feature with https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta.git the origin created was exactly as requested.
Now there are 2 different origins:

• https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta.git
• https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta

Noted Invalid because D591 by @vlorentz uses the most up-to-date mappings with the CodeMeta crosswalk table.

I'm accepting this diff- it looks great.
Nevertheless, I think there should be at least one test for CodeMeta (even without the json-ld resolution)
and I added a comment about the tool version.

I think that an alert would work in this case, just need to see when it appears.
This is also to prevent re-submission by mistake.

This test doesn"t pass but it's normal.
We should see how do we want to address this.
The CodeMeta file is a json-ld file and contains keys that are not detailed in the codemeta.csv table.

I need some more time to play with this diff before accepting it

Now that D558 and D557 have landed this error is no longer happening

I have the following error: P321
Don't know if this is due to local configuration or about the other unlanded diff.

This task was a temporary task to manually review the CodeMeta mapping, which I forgot to do but I can do it rapidly.
I think we should open a new task for you or use T1236 which have a more technical aspect of how to use the CodeMeta crosswalk table.

In D537#10796, @vlorentz wrote:

In D537#10779, @moranegg wrote:

Did you change the swh-schema.sql, I can't see it in this diff..?

I didn't have to, there's already a origin_metadata_translation table. Looks like @ardumont foresaw our need ^^

Another question, did we choose to have the revision_id as a column of the origin_intrinsic_metadata table? or is it in the translated_metadata?

The last comment was submitted rapidly, sorry..
It looks good, but I can't review tasks.py and other technical changes to the content indexers, so i'm pinging @ardumont to do a review as well.

Did you change the swh-schema.sql, I can't see it in this diff..?

I did open a ticket on identifiers.org to ask for a contextual identifier resolution:
ticket number: [Support #303235]

I don't know if this is important information for the documentation but the identifier is also resolvable in the web-ui search box (https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/search/)

This task is now not compatible with the new indexer db.
Also, this table might be divided into origin_intrinsic_metadata for the perstitent copy of T1232
and origin_extrinsic_metadata for metadata translated from the origin_metadata table.

The deployment of the RevisionMetadataIndexer will be correlated with the deployment of the OriginMetadataIndexer when the workflow is ready on a new separated task.

I suggested this task instead of editing because I wasn't sure about item no° 3 (Debian).
And I didn't know if entries should be dropped or do we want to keep all items in the list and have a checkbox when we get to them.

thanks ! good idea.

Can you keep the texts in the boxes you had with F3322096 ?
I find it clearer than just the logo.
Also, it helps to distinguish gitlab-Inria and hal, because hal has an hal-inria instance.

Looks great !

This looks good to me. Testing is also great for later iterations.

thanks to @vlorentz, this command solves the error:

The test passes and the duplicated code is gone, very nice.
But I should really write more tests, there are so many scenarios that aren't tested.

I have the same error with make test.
Maybe it's due to the initialization of the ContentIndexer during the RevisionIndexer.