# Use a common data model * Status: accepted * Deciders: sdruskat, poikilotherm, knodel, juckel, led02 * Date: 2022-03-07 ## Context and Problem Statement We need a data model that's - extensible, to take up metadata that cannot yet be included in CodeMeta.json - compatible with RO-Crate to exchange data between modules. The chosen option determines the serialization of the data model, too. See also [ADR 11](./0011-record-provenance-of-metadata) about provenance records in the data model. ## Considered Options * CodeMeta + schema.org via RO-Crate * CodeMeta + schema-based, extended JSON-LD for internal data model ## Decision Outcome Chosen option: "CodeMeta + schema-based, extended JSON-LD for internal data model", because extensibility is safeguarded, but can still be written out to standards. ### Positive Consequences * Compatibility with RO-Crate * Compatibility with CodeMeta * Compatibility with custom metadata to be deposited along standardized metadata ### Negative Consequences * Conversion step necessary to write out to existing standards ## Pros and Cons of the Options ### CodeMeta + schema.org via RO-Crate * Good, because Works with RO-Crate * Bad, because May not include potentially needed fields ### CodeMeta + schema-based, extended JSON-LD for internal data model * Good, because Can still be written to pure CodeMeta * Bad, because Danger of implicitly creating another standard (can be curcumvented by careful definition of relations)