CodeMeta Party: Preparing for v4.0

CodeMeta Party Preparing for v4.0 Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Source Program Office Research Assets Dashboard and Archival Resource Morane Gruenpeter and Sabrina Granger Acknowledgements The workshop is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant for the OSPO-RADAR project. 🙏 They participated in the workshop: Aida Jafarbigloo, Andrew Nesbitt, Bastien Guerry, Céanne Bakkam, Christopher Erdmann, Daniel Garijo, Emilie Nguyen Van Yen, Guillaume Bourdat, Jason Maassen, Josefina Sadowska, Leyla Jael Castro, Linda Angulo-Lopez, Marie Schmit, Marie-Christine Jacquemot, Martin Kirchgessner, Maxence Azzouz-Thuderoz, Renaud Boyer, Thomas Aynaud, Valentin Lorentz, Violaine Louvet They organized the workshop: Morane Gruenpeter (Co-Principal Investigator of the OSPO-RADAR Project, speaker, facilitator), Sabrina Granger (workshop coordinator), Aurélie Morin (event logistics) ● The CodeMeta community ○ Inclusivity, Recognition & Metadata ● Meeting etiquette Code of Conduct ○ Add your questions/links in the in the notes or/and GitHub discussion: #455 ○ Answer questions and add resources to the collaborative notes ○ Please be aware that the plenary is being recorded and will be made publicly available - and all whispers are audible online. ● You can add yourself to the list of participants Housekeeping Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #3/22 Unconference plan Time (CET) Workout of the day 9:30 Welcome coffee 9:40 [in plenary] Short introductions | Room: Emmy Noether and online 9:50 [in plenary] Opening talk, by Morane Gruenpeter + Q&A 10:35 [in plenary] How-to session about the unconference format 10:45 Break 11:00 [in plenary] The program is created by the participants. 12:00 Group photo, on-site and online (open your cams!) | Lunch and coffee 13:30 [work in sub-teams] 16:00 [in plenary] Workshop conclusion and next steps 16:30 End of the workshop 17:00 (optional) Monthly SciCodes Online Meeting 18:00 End of the SciCodes Meeting Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #4/22 Ice-breaker: Share your CodeMeta vibe Thomas Pronk proposed: 🤘 CodeMetal https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thomaspronk1981_morane-grunpeter-asks-whether-we-s hould-have-activity-7316195297250955265-B-nu https://tinyurl.com/codemeta-party Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #6/22 Clarifying the magic: what is software? Software as a concept ●project or entity ●the community around the project ●the software idea / algorithms / solutions Not a digital artifact Software artifacts ●Executables ○For multiple environments ●Source code A very large collection of digital artifacts Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #7/22 Research Software ➔created ○during the research process ○for a research purpose Software in research ➔used for research FAIR4RS output: Gruenpeter et al. Defining Research Software: a controversial discussion (Version 1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5504016 Three pillars of Open Science Software Heritage CC-By 4.0 2019 Software has multiple facets: -a tool -a research outcome or result -the object of research A pillar in Open Science: Software facets in Research Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #8/22 A culture shift: Making software a first class research output CodeMeta Adopted Pyramid from Strategy for Culture Change: Brian Nosek (2019) https://www.cos.io/blog/strategy-for-culture-change CodeMeta - More than a few added properties to schema.org CodeMeta Generator CodeMeta Vocabulary CodeMeta Mappings CodeMeta => citation / indicators Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #9/22 Catalogs and Registries Development platforms Scholarly repositories Publishers Accuracy - not created by author +created by author + added by authors +created by author Completeness + very detailed (curators) - not a priority - depends on the author or the repository’s requirements +strict requirements and review process Longevity - depends on registry - depends on platform (not archived) +preservation strategy ~ depends on archival strategy Extrinsic metadata Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #16/22 Curating software with CodeMeta ➔A subset of schema.org ➔An academic community and a community-led governance model ➔An interoperable MD standard ➔10 years in the making (a few dates) ◆2015 - 2016 Software Citation WG ●2026 The future of Metadata workshop ◆2017 - 2023 Software Implementation WG ●2020-2021 CodeMeta Task Force ◆2020 CodeMeta recommended by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) SIRS report ◆2021 - now SciCodes consortium ◆2022 - setting up governance the CodeMeta PMC SciCodes Consortium of scientific software registries and repositories Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #17/22 ●An open source tool to create codemeta.json files ○Use it directly on the CodeMeta hosted version ○Contributions are welcome on the code repository Created in 2019, during a FORCE11 Hackathon by @ProgVal, and maintained since by: A fork on https://github.com/oeg-upm/auto-codemeta-generator The Auto-CodeMeta-Generator: https://autocodemeta.linkeddata.es/ CodeMeta tools Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #18/22 In the software source code itself ● README ● LICENSE ● AUTHORS ●codemeta.json ● package management ○ pom.xml ○ package.json ○ … ● CITATION.cff ● .About ● … Human readable (e.g README) Machine actionable (e.g codemeta.json) swh:1:cnt:0be13d6d1d0c0b377cd6e9e152d24c4e0b08d37d Intrinsic metadata Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #19/22 SWH a metadata broker: BibTeX citation case BibTeX export @sofwtare @softwareversion @codefragment Citation docs Citation blog-post Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #20/22 Property Description OSPO Use Case Example Related PID / Standard name Human-readable title of the software Institutional inventory of software assets schema.org name description A description of the item. A research output abstract. schema.org description author / contributor People or organizations responsible for the software Linking to ORCID and ROR for attribution. Adding author role. ORCID, ROR version Software version or release Tracking evolution of institutional outputs Semantic Versioning license Applicable license(s) Monitoring license compatibility and compliance SPDX License IDs programmingLanguage Primary implementation languages Reporting language trends in institutional software schema.org mapping relatedPublication Publications describing or citing the software Linking code to Scholarly infrastructure (e.g HAL) bibliographic records DOI, HAL ID funding Funding sources that supported development Tracking grants and sponsor contributions Grant DOIs, funder ROR IDs readme / documentation (proposed) Documentation sources (README, build instructions, manuals) Ensuring reproducibility and usability in reporting To be added via CodeMeta PR Core CodeMeta properties for OSPOs The following CodeMeta properties are central to OSPO-RADAR use cases: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Henry Ford Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #22/22 Interoperability requires collaboration The Software knowledge graph requires a supported and coordinated effort. We need to treat code not just as a tool, but as a core pillar of our intellectual heritage. Mutualisation Open by default Sustainability Recognition Curation Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 | #23/22 Q & A https://tinyurl.com/codemeta-party Thank you for your engagement! Software Heritage | CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Unconference plan Time (CET) Workout of the day 9:30 Welcome coffee 9:40 [in plenary] Short introductions | Room: Emmy Noether and online 9:50 [in plenary] Opening talk, by Morane Gruenpeter + Q&A 10:35 [in plenary] How-to session about the unconference format 10:45 Break 11:00 [in plenary] The program is created by the participants. 12:00 Group photo, on-site and online (open your cams!) | Lunch and coffee 13:30 [work in sub-teams] 16:00 [in plenary] Workshop conclusion and next steps 16:30 End of the workshop 17:00 (optional) Monthly SciCodes Online Meeting 18:00 End of the SciCodes Meeting Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Session 2: Documentation properties What are your 3 take-home messages? - Weight the user need vs community need - The universe is expanding and contracting - We see if the cat likes the cardboard box first What comes next? Community feedback on issue#335 What questions do you have for the OSPO teams? Is a `documentation` property which allows multiple values to evaluate the quality of your catalogue? Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Session 3+6+7: CodeMeta to help OSPOs, SBOMs, Computed metadata What are your 3 take-home messages? #449 OSPO often needs to show the value of the software produced within the organization, OSPO needs valorisation information; Discussion on CHAOSS metrics, FLOSS criteria. What comes next? Update RSMD checklist. Analyze the dataset of SWH to find out if SoftwareRequirements is used, and how. Explore use cases and needs for metrics, state of the art, coverage What questions do you have for the OSPO teams? What metrics (examples from CHAOSS) are interesting to OSPOs? Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Session 4: Fix CodeMeta content negotiation What are your 3 take-home messages? #360 After some discussion, we finalized the design for the Codemeta website's URL scheme What comes next? Next steps: Daniel G. will implement the URI content negotiation scheme. What questions do you have for the OSPO teams? No questions Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Session 5: Multiple versions of codemeta files What are your 3 take-home messages? #451 ● Some codemeta files are outdated ● Too often, they are added late ● https://packages.ecosyste.ms/ contains a codemeta generator (from packages published on PyPI, npm, etc) What comes next? ● versions field ● Automatic detection of outdated codemeta files What questions do you have for the OSPO teams? ● Do you have (automated) means for watching for codemeta files? ● Do you have ways to incentivize updating those files? Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Session 8: Links to reference /controlled vocabularies into the Codemeta Generator What are your 3 take-home messages? #450 - Standardised schema with Crosswalks (less mapping needed) - Making one centralised tool to automate crosswalks ? - Clarify properties to match research software What comes next ? What questions do you have for the OSPO teams ? ● How to facilitate contributions to existing APIs ? Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 Software Heritage | OSPO-RADAR at CodeMeta Party | 20/11/2025 | CC-BY 4.0 The in-person and remote line-up Resources The warm-up: a recommended reading list Learn more about CodeMeta ● CodeMeta in a nutshell: https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/08/30/codemeta-new-features/ ●https://www.softwareheritage.org/2023/08/24/archival-of-software-metadata/ ● CodeMeta repository (vocabulary and crosswalk): https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta ● Issue tracker: https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/issues ● Work space for today: https://github.com/codemeta/codemeta/discussions/445 ● Software Heritage documentation of the metadata indexer https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-indexer/metadata-workflow.html#implementation-status Learn more about academic OSPOs and the OSPO-RADAR project ● Gruenpeter, M. (2025). Open Source Program Office Research Assets Dashboard and Archival Resource. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15344815 ●https://www.softwareheritage.org/2025/04/02/ospo-radar-project-launch/ ● Gruenpeter, M., Boyer, R., & Granger, S. (2025). D1.1 OSPO-RADAR Stakeholder Requirements and Specifications. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17292913 The Software Metadata Curation Roadmap Short-term (0-2 years) 1. Support and training: Academic institutions should invest in curation and training activities for researchers and support staff, acknowledging the significant effort required. 2. Infrastructure curation capabilities: Infrastructures encompass a wide range of platforms, including aggregators, publishers and scholarly repositories. 3. Adopting and adapting metadata guidelines: Institutions should require infrastructures to provide metadata capabilities that align with community-based guidelines, such as the FAIR-IMPACT Research Software MetaData (RSMD) guidelines, CodeMeta, and/or CFF metadata standards. 4. Community effort: Infrastructures should actively engage in community-driven efforts (e.g., the SciCodes consortium) to develop and implement standards, guidelines, and best practices. 5. Recognition & acknowledgement: ○Career evaluation: Institutions should integrate curated metadata records into activity reports to highlight software as a recognized and valued research output, using this information in the career evaluation of researchers as an incentive. ○Citation standard: Strengthening the connection between researchers and their software outputs by using the BibTeX @software type in articles and ensuring that software is properly cited and credited in scholarly work. 10.5281/zenodo.14509418 Read the full report The Software Metadata Curation Roadmap Medium-term (2-5 years) 1. Adoption: Institutions and funders should support the adoption of infrastructures that propose curation capabilities to ensure the maintenance and sustainability of these infrastructures. 2. Robust curation processes: Stakeholders should implement robust curation processes utilizing the capabilities of infrastructures. 3. Automation: Automation should be employed wherever possible to streamline the curation process and reduce the manual burden on researchers and curators. 4. Interoperability: ○Identifiers: Infrastructures should support both intrinsic (e.g., SWHID) and extrinsic (e.g., DOI) identifiers for software identification and ensure that Software Hash Identifiers (SWHID) are exposed for archived resources whenever possible. ○Exposing metadata: The adoption of standard APIs is crucial for making metadata harvestable across different platforms, thereby enhancing interoperability. 5. Feedback mechanisms: The research community should establish regular feedback channels, similar to those used in Open Source communities, to enable users to report issues and suggest improvements of functionalities and workflows to the infrastructures.