Update crosswalks image

[meldra]

This is the .svg adapted from @lindangulopez codepen prototype adjusted according to discussion with @progval

Replaces pr #118

[lindangulopez]

@meldra can you keep PR: #118 - the CodeMeta Team agreed on this version.

[lindangulopez]

[https://github.com//pull/118]

please keep this .svg

[lindangulopez]

@progval @meldra can you plese revert to PR#118 : this was the agreeded diagram - it is in svg.
[[https://github.com//pull/118](https://github.com//pull/118%5C)]

[progval]

Link to @lindangulopez's version: https://github.com/lindangulopez/codemeta.github.io/blob/codeMeta-diagram/static/img/crosswalkdiagram.svg

[progval]

@lindangulopez I find the one in this PR to be more readable, because it shows links between terms instead of only relying on color. It's also more correct to have "(exact_match)" be a property of the relation than have it par of the node label, because it's not a property of the node.

[moranegg]

@progval The other image was validated in a CodeMeta meeting and is a community-agreed version.

There are two options:

1. to take the time to re-discuss the diagram in a community meeting
2. push into the user documentation the validated crosswalk image

I'm inclined to stay as is and not put more time into it.

[douardda]

I agree the proposal from this PR is far more readable and easier to understand than the alternatives.

Also, I don't get why this needs to be discussed in a community meeting. This is not a change of the spec, nor any technical modification of any crosswalk or so. A simple validation from MR's review process seems adequate here.

(but that's just my opinion)

[moranegg]

CodeMeta is a community-led standard with regular calls to discuss how to improve the metadata vocabulary and usability.

This diagram was discussed in a call.
This is why I'm proposing option 1 to discuss the new option before merging anything here.

The effort put into keeping this community driven is important.

I hope this clarifies my comment.

[meldra]

Can you clarify the reasons the team chose to label the relations this way, for those of us who were not on the community calls?

[lindangulopez]

Ah, I will redo a push from the master branch then @progval

[moranegg]

@meldra They didn't choose; they only saw the previous version.
This is why option 1 states, "to take the time to re-discuss the diagram in a community meeting."

It can also happen in this PR, but for now, only SWH team members are involved in this discussion here.

Both diagrams are an improvement over no diagram.

[meldra]

These PRs do replace an existing diagram though. This goes on the crosswalks page replacing a diagram you, Linda, and I had already discussed on a call last year and was merged.

My understanding was that this new image process happened due to pr #99. In that PR we rejected and I retracted a confused attempt at a diagram for the user-guide page in favor of Linda crowdsourcing a new one. Is that one also in the works?

[lindangulopez]

Hi @progval, @meldra @moranegg & @douardda I will discuss this in our next meeting, on Tuesday. and let you know which image we should keep. Kind regards, Linda.