Binaries, binary package, Source code, Source package ... OTT?

[joncison]

To have Binaries and Binary package, also Source and Source package - in Downloads - to me seems to make unnecessary distinctions, and thus is OTT.

I propose we just manage with Binaries and Source code.

Any objections @hansioan @matuskalas @hmenager ? If so, pls. explain why needed.

[joncison]

Go with:

• Package (Debian)
• Package (CRAN)
• Package (Conda)
• Package (NPM)
• Package (Other)
  (to begin - but review - do we need PyPI)

BUT retain Source and Binaries

[matuskalas]

Probably switch Package (Conda) with Package (Bioconda). See also #158

[joncison]

Go with this for now:

• Source code : "The source code for the software, that can be compiled or assembled into an executable computer program."
• Binaries : "Binaries for the software; compiled code that allow a program to be installed without having to compile the source code."
• Software package : "A software package; a bundle of files and information about those files, typically including source code and / or binaries."

Can always extend with more specific concepts for packages, if / when required.

[joncison]

@matuskalas @hansioan again, we can follow the pattern in future:

• softwarePackage
  • softwarePackage->url
  • softwarePackage->type

i.e. move Software package out of download enum into its own element

[joncison]

@bgruening @hmenager is (or likely will in the next 6 months, say) the "ecosystem" be at a stage that its worthwhile remodelling biotoolsSchema for softwarePackage as per suggestion above (whilst leaving Binaries and Source code as-is (see above) ?

See also #158.

cc @matuskalas @hansioan

[joncison]

hi @bgruening @hmenager cc @matuskalas

could you please advise re remodelling of biotoolsSchema for software packages, to better handle data integration for the "ecosystem" as per thread above? Me and @hansioan are beginning to look at schema-related things this week and might be able to include the changes in the next release, which is coming soon. Thanks!

[joncison]

hi @bgruening @hmenager cc @matuskalas - me and @hansioan are going ahead with release 3.3.0, so if you have suggestions for above (please let's have them), they can go into a subsequent release. Ta!