Align SORTÆD taxonomy with CodeMeta role proposal

[stain]

See issue codemeta/codemeta#240 proposing:

• Design (algorithm)
• Architecture
• Debugging
• Maintenance
• Coding
• Documentation
• Testing
• Support
• Management

Mapped to ours SORTÆD:

• Supervision ~= Management
• Resources > Maintenance
• Funding/Owner > Management
• Outreach > Support
• Development > Coding
• Development > Debugging
• Development > Architecture
• Development > Maintenance
• Data curation > 0
• Testing == Testing
• Documentation == Documentation
• Conceptualisation > Architecture
• Conceptualisation > Design (algorithm)

It seems from this that our Development is a bit too broad and their Support, Architecture and Design too narrow, and Maintenance a bit unclear.

[moranegg]

Thanks @stain for creating this issue.

I believe that this is an accurate mapping for the current SOTAED taxonomy.
I liked the ==, >, ~= symbols used.

In my opinion, having a broad role development to describe very different functionalities and roles in software development is adapted to very small software projects:

Development > Coding
Development > Debugging
Development > Architecture - also architecture is both in conceptualization and development
Development > Maintenance

Maintenance is a sys-admin role which includes packaging, deployment, etc.
Debugging is a Q&A/review role which can be a separate role in large projects.

Another comment, funding in CodeMeta is not an author role but has it's own metadata property.

[stain]

Thanks, @moranegg -- I am also sceptical about having too much of a catch-all "Development", but dropping it means many aspects of Development then has to be unrolled like Architecture, Integration, Models, APIs, Graphical Design.

I also wish we had a category for Releasing/Packaging -- for instance some software is packaged in Conda or Docker by people who are otherwise not affiliated with the project, and often struggle to get recognition even if their work is used by thousands of users.

I think our "Funding" category is misleading, it is more of an "Owner" to denote responsibility, sponsorship etc. and there may be some person involved in that without doing day-to-day Management. This would also cover PIs etc. On the other side a broader "Outreach" would cover roles like "Open Source Advocates" not included in "Training", "Support" or "Management"

[moranegg]

I also stumbled upon this list of contributors to software: https://allcontributors.org/docs/en/emoji-key

[moranegg]

After reviewing the all-contributors list, it is also very high-level for development role called code..