[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Metadata exchange with the Tools Platform Ecosystem

Hello Steffen and everyone, ^^

Giant thanks for your quick and enthusiastic answer!

On 2020-11-11 16:59, Steffen Möller wrote:

Hello Hervé, hello Matúš,

On 11.11.20 16:36, Hervé Ménager wrote:

Hello Debian-ers,
We (ELIXIR Tools Platform) have been working a lot on the Tools
Platform lately. One of the major contributors is Debian Med, and
collecting the package metadata from you will soon enable:
- cross-linking between e.g. bio.tools and Debian Med packages
- cross-validation and enrichment of metadata.


How cool is that!

I just checked https://bio.tools/clustalo and found the "software
package" link to Debian's tracker. Great!


Speaking of which, our current setup is very convenient for us: we can
update Debian metadata at any time, and use it to produce better tool
descriptions. *But*, one thing which is unclear is how we can
contribute back some metadata to your packages. Would there be any
kind of interest on your side in e.g. opening Merge Requests on salsa
when some metadata can use some update? If so, should our system open
these MRs automatically or semi-automatically (assuming we can define
precisely when a metadata difference mandates a correction on the
Debian side)?


You personally have access to salsa.debian.org/med-team and can go for
anything exceptional without further delay.

You can also prepare and auto-prepare (!) pull requests of whatever
nature these may be for all packages that are on salsa.
For packages in Debian Med, fixing smallish bugs, like adding/correcting 
the bio.tools reference I think you can just do them.


Great!
We could correct the bio.tools reference for those tools|packages that have a link to Debian's tracker, but those would expectedly have a valid bio.tools ID in Debian already :) Or am I wrong?
A seed for the edam annotation would be good, which then the individual maintainers 
extend, by chance.


This is an excellent idea!


I do not think I would in an automated way update
package descriptions. And the URLs should also be checked manually. Even 
if you have the correct newer one, the one that is listed is likely the
one where the software was downloaded from and it identifies the
sources, too.


Hmm, good points.
Maybe we'll have to be a bit careful about the versions of the source pkg in Debian and those that a particular bio.tools record is valid for (N.B. such annotation is optional in bio.tools). Such check, where possible, may apply to generating the edam seed, too. 


More important in that respect is that the debian/watch
file is updated so the maintainer is informed about the updates.


Ok, thanks for the reminder, I see this is crucial.



As a start, I think a mere web page with lists of changes that you want
to feed back would be nice so we can think along.
Indeed, I think this is the way to start, before we dive into complex functionality. 



Thank you both!
Steffen (has added/updated already three bio.tools references today :o) ) 

So super cool, first place medal Steffen!

Thanks so much,
Matus
Reply to: