Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Carl Boettiger
    @cboettig
    hi
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    Hi
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    I'm in!
    Abigail Cabunoc Mayes
    @acabunoc
    hello :wave: :sparkles: :tada:
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    :thumbsup:
    @krzysztof here is my attempt at an updated context: https://github.com/kyleniemeyer/codemeta/blob/patch-2/codemeta.jsonld
    Neil Chue Hong
    @npch
    Yet another chat channel - woo!
    Abigail Cabunoc Mayes
    @acabunoc
    YACC
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    Luke Coy
    @lukecoy
    :+1:
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    acabunoc @acabunoc gets ready to spam kyle
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    @acabunoc :worried:
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    Hey @kyleniemeyer -- any chance you could push your most recent version of the crosswalk table into github? maybe in a branch?
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    Not in front of my computer at the moment, but i will push it later tonight when I am
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    OK, we could use it whenever you get a chance. We're in the lobby trying to get it presentable for tomorrow.
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    hey @acabunoc and @kyleniemeyer do you have a citation or url to the python specification of software metadata that you mapped in the table?
    Neil Chue Hong
    @npch
    @mbjones It should be in the google doc for our breakout
    Lemme see
    @mbjones yup - take a look at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/113p7tQz3Pw8wYIzQnSBrCOmGv2LJZ7nBAzKh1ZtG6G4/edit for all the sources for the additional columns from our group
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    thanks
    Matt Jones
    @mbjones
    Hey CodeMeta'ers :0 Anyone want to review my PR for the SCWG document about the codemeta crosswalk; see force11/force11-scwg#125
    Kyle Niemeyer
    @kyleniemeyer
    @cboettig @danielskatz @ashleysa (the latter two may not be in Gitter): we should try to resolve the authorship question
    Carl Boettiger
    @cboettig
    @kyleniemeyer @danielkatz @ashleysa indeed. open to ideas but here's one proposal for you: If no one wants to take on a leadership role in wrangling and seeing it out the door; I'm happy to cover that and play first-author. If someone (cough Kyle) wants to do that I'd love to make them first author, maybe Ashley as second, and propose I go at the end ("senior author"). We order the others by some arbitrary metric, and we say authorship order was determined by "the consensus of the workshop" if we comment on it at all. Does this sound fair?
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    As I said at the meeting, I think we either should list authors based on contribution (perhaps determined via the general consensus of the participants), or we should alphabetize (other than the lead author), as people who see a citation to the document will assume that we are doing one of these: If the order is alphabetic, it will be assumed that we used alphabetic order, and if the order is anything else, it will be assumed that we ordered according to contribution. (I can't believe I'm writing this badly while listening to a talk on bad writing)