Change softwareVersion to version in toplevel CWL

[Hneuschmidt]

The EOAP best practice specification requires the s:version metadata field in the toplevel CWL document:
https://docs.ogc.org/bp/20-089r1.html#req-app-pck-metadata

The requirement req/app-pck/metadata (requirement 11) states:

The Application Package CWL Workclass classes SHALL include additional metadata as defined in Table 1

The only required field of Table 1 besides id is s:version as in https://schema.org/version .

This is confusing because all but one of the examples examples in the best practice document use s:softwareVersion instead.

The statement from Requirement 11 is normative however, unlike the examples.

Closes #90

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.64%. Comparing base (dd62a0b) to head (6bbf641).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #89   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.64%   97.64%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines         595      595           
  Branches       66       66           
=======================================
  Hits          581      581           
  Misses          9        9           
  Partials        5        5           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[pont-us]

@Hneuschmidt Would it make sense to include both version and softwareVersion (with identical values)? As far as I can see from a quick glance, the best practice document doesn't forbid additional arbitrary fields, and other EOAP software might be expecting softwareVersion given its prevalence in the examples.

[Hneuschmidt]

I think that is reasonable. I am also not aware of any restrictions regarding additional fields. We should make sure to keep the versions either aligned or to semantically differentiate them if we move away from the constant version 1.0 at some point.

[pont-us]

Safest to keep them aligned, I think. If/when required we can introduce a configuration field for the version, but for now this is fine. I added an associated issue and updated the changelog -- will merge as soon as CI completes.