sdruskat

5 ms·

1.
by sdruskat 5y ago
The agenda release and docs update came a few days later, yes. I think it might have been in the Gem already, albeit experimentally.
2.
by sdruskat 5y ago
This is because CFF is mainly built to support the software citation principles [1], where it is argued (rightly so, if you ask me) that software is important enough to be cited in its own right. Also, there will likely be no new paper for
3.
by sdruskat 5y ago
The guarantee is that you have citation information for a specific research output type: software (or dataset, as defined), and that it is the output you have found the CFF file with. Unless people want to break the principle on purpose, ag
4.
by sdruskat 5y ago
@software is simply an alias for the fallback @misc, i.e., semantics are lost, no fields like different URLs for different software media (code, build artifacts, etc.), no software identifier support, etc. Also, you can have people cite you
5.
by sdruskat 5y ago
Not for providing citation metadata for software, where BibTeX misses important fields.
6.
by sdruskat 5y ago
This is indeed something that needs to be solved. I think the current path in the schol comms community leans towards having contributors (with different roles) as well as authors. Also, summary authors ("the <project> contributo
7.
by sdruskat 5y ago
This is something that you can do by providing a `preferred-citation` in a CITATION.cff file. This will be rendered on GitHub as the thing to cite. See the schema guide section about this here: https://github.com/citation-fi
8.
by sdruskat 5y ago
We're trying to bring CFF to other platforms as well, so everything just becomes stickier ;). E.g. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/337368 .
9.
by sdruskat 5y ago
I guess the answer is semantics: who will guarantee (e.g. to downstream services) a CITATION.bib file will contain the metadata for the software in the repo? CFF is single-purpose and made for just that.
10.
by sdruskat 5y ago
Hi, and thanks for supporting CFF through the Zotero connector (for GitHub repos) now :). FYI, we're in the process of improving the website atm, including a Rationale section, etc. which will hopefully make it clearer why we think the
11.
by sdruskat 5y ago
Now including GitHub, that gives you BibTeX generated from CFF files :).
12.
by sdruskat 5y ago
Hi, co-lead of the CFF project here. One advantage I see is semantics, and that it's single-purpose. Downstream clients (archives, indexers, GitHub citation feature, etc.) know exactly what they're dealing with (citation informati
13.
by sdruskat 8y ago
Clutch predicted this in 2004: "Everybody move to Canada, smoke lots of pot, everybody move to Canada right now!" (Clutch, "The Mob Goes Wild", Blast Tyrant. DRT: 2004) https://youtu.be/XDCNJtK6XkE And s
14.
by sdruskat 8y ago
I've confronted my PhD supervisor (Professor of Library and Information Science) with this statement once, and she almost went berserk. Her take is that free text search is approaching the solved problem stage, but almost all other sea
15.
by sdruskat 8y ago
Software Heritage is doing great things, and will be central to current efforts in research software sustainability, software citation, and most of all reproducible research!
16.
by sdruskat 8y ago
- Burnistoun (sample here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAz_UvnUeuU , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnistoun ): I have regularly thrown laughing fits over this. - Hardy Bucks ( https://you
17.
by sdruskat 9y ago
Aims to be, yes. Early stages still, but it's well-supported by a number of institutions, funders, governments even.
18.
by sdruskat 9y ago
Aaaand it's back.
19.
by sdruskat 9y ago
It exist! Not a whitepaper, but at least a Medium article: https://medium.com/@alexberegszaszi/mango-git-completely-dec... . Ethereum + IPFS/Swarm as backend for Git. Source code is currently unavailable as it is h
20.
by sdruskat 9y ago
If all goes belly up there is always Software Heritage ( https://www.softwareheritage.org/ ).
21.
by sdruskat 9y ago
Has been done now. https://status.github.com/messages .
22.
by sdruskat 9y ago
Great concept promising potentially more in-depth experiences than the cpomtetition. I think that the single point of failure of the site would be failure to build a large enough community of reviewers.
23.
Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE5.1)(wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk)
2 points by sdruskat 9y ago|0 comments