`legalName` in affiliation is invalid? about codemeta HOT 4 CLOSED

Dear @vuillaut,

Thanks for the comment.
My suggestion is to open the issue directly in the codemeta-generator repo.
Feedback to improve the generator is very welcome. PRs are welcomed too, when possible.

I'm closing this issue here.
Cheers

from codemeta.

My impression is that CodeMeta intentionally selects a subset of schema.org terms that are most useful for software. In this case 'name' is used in many places in CodeMeta, so it's easiest to also use it for affiliation. Switching to 'legalName' for affiliation would add unnecessary complexity.

from codemeta.

@vuillaut @tmorrell I think the online generator is meant to be a guide rather than an enforcement.
If something is valid in schema.org, it should be valid in codemeta, as codemeta extends schema.org.

There are other examples where the validator fails, which are technically valid cases. For example, if the repository has a logo, and you use image from Schema.org (which is valid for any element), the validator fails. Also, if you have multiple descriptions (e.g., a short description and a long description, or a description of your software in english and another in spanish), the validator will also fail.

from codemeta.

I agree that including legalName should not create an error. That said, I think the intention of CodeMeta is to provide opinionated guidelines on which schema.org fields really should be provided for software. So, for example, name should be used, even if legalName is also used, and the absence of name should be considered to not be following CodeMeta guidelines. I think the challenge is getting the online generator to work with the essentially unlimited flexibility of the schema.org model -- there are far too many permutations to make a usable user experience in the editor. If you want the full flexibility of the schema.org model, break out your trusty text editor and edit away, rather than trying to do it all in the generator app. So, maybe the editor should stay how it is and edit the documents and fields that it knows how to handle, and a separate validator could be provided that indicates whether any given schema.org entry is valid. The generator might even say something to the effect of "While this document is valid wrt schema.org, it uses fields that the generator is not designed to handle, so will need to be edited elsewhere".

from codemeta.