How to improve the CodeMeta mappings of the crosswalk table

[moranegg]

I would like to start a discussion on the topic of improving the crosswalks/mappings in:

Goals

• Have machine actionable mappings to be easily integrated into translation tools
• Keep mappings that are FAIR=> Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable
• Keep track of the information about the mapping creation - metametadata

Possible formats

Recently I've been introduced to the SSSOM format: https://mapping-commons.github.io/sssom/
which is adapted to achieve the goals above.

Risks

• harder to get contributions
• needs to be compatible with the table reconstruction scripts / or low effort to change

Please comment this discussion with your take on this potential enhancement of the CodeMeta mappings.

Reference:

• Let crosswalk authors supply information specific to their crosswalk? #265

[dgarijo]

Maybe we can do a smooth transition: first add a mechanism to introduce metadata (who did it, a column for mapping rationale) and then the means to state whether something is related, broader, narrower than a target concept.

[nsjuty]

The mappings survey from Yann for t4.4 in FAIR-IMPACT captures some of this information - the results could be useful. Also aligns with the framework we will present in terms of metametadata, in terms of mapping creation context.
Links:
https://fair-impact.eu/news/collecting-ways-doing-mappings-take-survey
https://fair-impact.eu/events/fair-impact-events/developing-mapping-process-framework

I'm not quite ready with the framework 'information capture' on use, but I'm trying to make it low barrier (drop down options etc).