diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 5ad1149..51416ca 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -136,4 +136,7 @@ uv.lock .python-version # Testing directory thats named results_XXX, for example results_widoco since this is for testing purposes -results_*/ \ No newline at end of file +results_*/ + +# Backup directory +BACKUP/ \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/catalog.html b/docs/catalog.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f92439 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/catalog.html @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ + + +
+ ++ This is a catalog of the pitfalls and warnings we have come across during our research on software metadata quality. + Based on these findings, we at Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) + have developed our tool RSMetaCheck to automatically diagnose and identify these common issues in software metadata files. + Warnings do not have a severity level because originally they were opted due to their low severity and classified as "Warnings" instead of "Pitfalls" +
+| Identifier | +Source | +Pitfall | +Description | +Suggestion | +Examples | +Importance | +
|---|
- This is an automated tool to detect metadata quality pitfalls in software repositories, - from version mismatches, license issues, broken URLs. To verify the performance of our tool - we made this study we are building a ground truth dataset that was manually annotated from evaluating a sample of 150 repositories - from InnovationSprint2025 and - a small sample of openAIRE, then had RSMetaCheck tested across versions 0.3.0 and 0.3.3 with comparison to the ground truth that we have established. -
-Full pitfall and warning detection results from manual annotation across all 150 evaluated repositories.
- → View Report - - -Side-by-side repository-level comparison of pitfall and warning detection between 0.3.0 and 0.3.3.
- → View Comparison - - -Distribution charts and grouped comparison of pitfall and warning detection across 0.3.0 and 0.3.3.
- → View Charts - -- This is a catalog of the pitfalls and warnings we have come across during our research on software metadata quality. - Based on these findings, we at Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) - have developed our tool RSMetaCheck to automatically diagnose and identify these common issues in software metadata files. - Warnings do not have a severity level because originally they were opted due to their low severity and classified as "Warnings" instead of "Pitfalls" -
-| Identifier | -Source | -Pitfall | -Description | -Suggestion | -Examples | -Importance | -
|---|
+ This is an automated tool to detect metadata quality pitfalls in software repositories, + from version mismatches, license issues, broken URLs. To verify the performance of our tool + we made this study we are building a ground truth dataset that was manually annotated from evaluating a sample of 150 repositories + from InnovationSprint2025 and + a small sample of openAIRE, then had RSMetaCheck tested across versions 0.3.0 and 0.3.3 with comparison to the ground truth that we have established. +
+Full pitfall and warning detection results from manual annotation across all 150 evaluated repositories.
+ → View Report + + +Side-by-side repository-level comparison of pitfall and warning detection between 0.3.0 and 0.3.3.
+ → View Comparison + + +Distribution charts and grouped comparison of pitfall and warning detection across 0.3.0 and 0.3.3.
+ → View Charts + + +Complete catalog of all detected metadata pitfalls and warnings with descriptions, suggestions, and examples.
+ → View Catalog + +