Interoperability with Frictionless Standards

[mnauge]

Le format proposé est-il compatible avec les standards et outils préconisés par Frictionless ?

https://frictionlessdata.io/standards/#standards-toolkit

[NicolasCARPi]

Hello (please keep it in english),

Is the proposed format compatible with Frictionless standards?

I believe the use of JSON-LD in RO-Crate is even better than what frictionless is proposing. The RO-Crate whitepaper mentions Frictionless and its shortcomings:

We have identified a gap for a solid base format for data packaging that also allow communities to
build domain-specific solutions. Frictionless data [8] could arguably fill this gap, with mature
specifications and a strong design philosophy, however as an independent JSON format it does not
fully apply Linked Data principles, and would be harder to use in FAIR integrations and extensions.

(from https://zenodo.org/record/3337883)

Also:

The main addition in the upcoming 1.2 release of the RO-Crate specifications will be the formalization of profiles for different categories of crates. Additional entity types have been requested by users, e.g. workflow runs, business workflows, containers and software packages, tabular data structures; these are not always matched well with existing Schema.org types but may benefit from other vocabularies or even separate metadata files, e.g. from Frictionless Data. We will be further aligning and collaborating with related research artefact description efforts like CodeMeta for software metadata, Science-on-Schema.org [125] for datasets, FAIR Digital Objects [75] and activities in EOSC task forces including the EOSC Interoperability Framework [16].

(from https://www.researchobject.org/2021-packaging-research-artefacts-with-ro-crate/manuscript.html)