doc(standard): deprecate usedBy

[bfabio]

No description provided.

[bzg]

Hi Fabio, I probably missed some previous conversation about this: why is usedBy deprecated? This is something we use in https://github.com/codegouvfr/awesome-codegouvfr/ and this is a useful information we want to promote. Is it replaced by something else?

Copying my colleague @hjonin on this.

[bfabio]

Hi @bzg, it's a proposal that has been cooking for a while now because usedBy comes with many pitfalls. I marked it as a draft while I'm writing the rationale and the various thoughts we've had over the years, so we can have a single place with all feedback we gathered.

It's not final of course, there's still the discussion and voting to be had.

While we're at it, I think we can try and vote the proposals for v0.3.1 of the Standard this month (leaving this one out if there's no clear consensus).

[bvhme]

I saw the usedBy also used in the prototype JoinUp catalogue. I like it, but understand there are some pitfalls with a key like this and that it might not completely fit the concept of the standard.

[libremente]

I saw the usedBy also used in the prototype JoinUp catalogue. I like it, but understand there are some pitfalls with a key like this and that it might not completely fit the concept of the standard.

Do you have any idea on how that field is used in that context? Just curiosity

[libremente]

I saw the usedBy also used in the prototype JoinUp catalogue. I like it, but understand there are some pitfalls with a key like this and that it might not completely fit the concept of the standard.

Since the EU catalogue is now live I can see that they are displaying the usedBy entry at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately, as of today, the catalogue's code has not been released anywhere so I have no idea how they implemented this feature but checking a few entries in the catalogue it looks consistent (i.e., if that array is populated then its entries are displayed in the webpage or in a modal window if the list is too long).

[bzg]

FWIW we are still reading usedBy entries from publiccode.yml files when displaying the Awesome code.gouv.fr list.

We could replace it with a new property instances as an optional array of URLs to list public instances.

Do you think instances (or equivalent) would be of interest?

[libremente]

FWIW we are still reading usedBy entries from publiccode.yml files when displaying the Awesome code.gouv.fr list.

We could replace it with a new property instances as an optional array of URLs to list public instances.

Do you think instances (or equivalent) would be of interest?

I think usedBy was a sort of compromise, a simple and static way to get some stats regarding the "reuse" of any given solution.
However, it has too many drawbacks as we discussed many times in the past since it's one of the only parts of the standard that cannot be easily controlled by the repoOwner.
Something like instances could be a nice addition since it is also easier for the repoOwner to check if the URL inserted in a specific PR is valid or not.
However I see other possible pitfalls, like e.g.:

• it kind of moves the focal point from the "who" is using it (in Italy it's an Italian PA) to the "how" (tech implementation). This can definitely be beneficial especially during the tech evaluation of a tool but it's different from the original usedBy key. But then what happens when an administration deploys a software in a private intranet without exposing anything to the outside world? Everything is working, no licenses are breached (hopefully) but no links are available.
• It's kind of linked to a web/backend/library softwareType. I mean, if you think at a standalone/desktop application it is hard to have URL resolving an "instance" of that software.
• It could introduce other issues linked with URLs, specifically on the validation side. What happens if some of the URLs don't resolve anymore for different reasons? The publiccode.yml will still be considered valid or not? What should the publiccode.yml maintainer do since she/he is not directly controlling those deployments?

As such I don't see it as a perfect substitute of usedBy per se, they look complementary to me.