Conversation
Typos and some additions
|
I think the page looks great and give a good overview of the FAIR principles for software. |
|
Thank you for the review @lauportell - I'd like to merge this and we can get more people to add their comments later on due to the deadline of getting the content in before the demo. Would have a look again please @lauportell and approve this PR? |
|
I will do a review of this soon. We have to mention https://fair-impact.github.io/RSMD-guidelines/ which are key for metadata and FAIRness. |
Sounds good - pls feel free to add more tools. |
|
will do a review today |
|
|
||
| ### Findable | ||
| - Create a description of your software to make it discoverable by search engines and other search tools | ||
| - Place your software in a public software repository (and ideally register it in a [general-purpose or domain-specific software registry][software-registries]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should recommend firs trying to register your tool in a community registry (domain-specific, such as bio-tools or ASCL), and if such community registry does not exist, then register it in a general purpose one.
|
|
||
| ### Accessible | ||
| - Make sure people can freely, legally and easily get a copy your software | ||
| - Structure your code using common patterns and use coding conventions to make your code readable and understandable by people (once they obtain a copy of it), i.e. make your code accessible in the *intelligible* sense |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is reusability, not accesibility :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We interpret accessible as you can obtain it and also as you can understand and grasp it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But look at what the principle states. It has nothing to do with licensing issues!
We can't reinterpret the word in another context, in my opinion:
A: Software, and its metadata, is retrievable via standardized protocols
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could have a private license and still be accessible
| | Coding conventions | | x | x | x | | ||
| | Software-level documentation (comments and docstrings, explaining functionality) | | x | x | x | | ||
| | Project-level documentation (READMEs, explaining functionality/installation/running) | | x | x | x | | ||
| | License - code sharing and reuse | | x | | x | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
License is reusability, not accessibility
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd argue also accessibility - if you cannot legally obtain the software, you cannot reuse it.
| | Testing - code correctness and reproducibility | | x | | x | | ||
| | Coding conventions | | x | x | x | | ||
| | Software-level documentation (comments and docstrings, explaining functionality) | | x | x | x | | ||
| | Project-level documentation (READMEs, explaining functionality/installation/running) | | x | x | x | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd argue it is also about making people understand/grasp the code - hence accessibility in that sense.
|
|
||
| | Tools and practices | Findable | Accessible | Interoperable | Reusable | | ||
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- | ------------- | -------- | | ||
| | Virtual development environments | | x | | x | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not accessibility, but +1 R3: software meets domain-specific community standards
|
@anenadic sorry it took a while. Not sure if you can address all the comments in time. Happy to go forward (maybe fixing the things that are not correct according to FAIR4S?) and add the rest in an issue to be looked at later. |
|
And thanks for taking a stab at this. It is maybe one of the pages that will be more difficult to complete just because there is so much stuff out there. |
|
@dgarijo - thanks for the review. I see the point of your arguments and happy to have a chat to make sure we reach a consensus and can make an initial version we are all happy with. Will get in touch with you separately. |
|
@anenadic the |
3 participants
No description provided.