Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification needed for the acronym "URI" in the context of RRID #409

Open
zoe-translates opened this issue Jun 30, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@zoe-translates
Copy link
Contributor

As well as a version number, a unique resource identifier (URI) for the tool is

Should this be uniform resource identifier? (Although I don't think the RRID has a formal URL scheme or URN namespace yet.)

@mr-c
Copy link
Member

mr-c commented Jun 30, 2023

@zoe-translates That's correct. Really it needs to be any persistent identifier (PID) in the form of an URI/IRI, so we can take the RRID CURIE and express it as a full URI/IRI using a resolution service like identifiers.org.

So that's the full technical explanation; but that is overly complex for this section, I think.

I would happily review and clarification or simplification you would suggest!

@zoe-translates
Copy link
Contributor Author

Based on my understanding of the SoftwarePackage in the specification, the specs field should only list full IRIs, rather than compact IDs -- is that correct? Am I correct in assuming that the correct "resolution" of a compact ID to IRI (here using the identifiers.org redirect) is something the user should do, in order to maximize the interoperability of the CWL file being written?

@mr-c
Copy link
Member

mr-c commented Jul 5, 2023

Based on my understanding of the SoftwarePackage in the specification, the specs field should only list full IRIs, rather than compact IDs -- is that correct?

That is correct; full URI/IRIs only.

Am I correct in assuming that the correct "resolution" of a compact ID to IRI (here using the identifiers.org redirect) is something the user should do, in order to maximize the interoperability of the CWL file being written?

Yes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants