I just saw dataspice in the summary of the unconf2018.
Given this, I’m a bit surprised that ropensci rejected my package codebook during a pre-submission inquiry for not being in scope for ropensci. My idea was to offer some nice plots and websites to data holders to get machine-readable metadata for others. I just now saw that emldown by Carl Boettiger had the exact same pitch a few months earlier (but based around EML rather than attributes). I didn’t know about emldown unfortunately, and also wasn’t clued in during the onboarding process.
But some of the ropensci people who I was in touch with before the pre-submission inquiry (e.g. Maëlle Salmon) now built dataspice in ropenscilabs. It has very similar core functionalities to my package (website generation for a metadata codebook + JSON-LD generation).
Obviously, I don’t want copyright over an idea or anything like that. dataspice seems really cool, and goes above and beyond what my package does (with EML support and a Shiny app to enter metadata). It just seems that a joint effort could have been even better, and the kind of community input dataspice got, is what I was hoping for when I submitted the pre-submission inquiry, i.e. that people collaborate to avoid re-inventing the wheel. I’d appreciate to hear whether that is on me for misunderstanding what ropensci is about.
If it’s just on me, I’d like to know if dataspice will be maintained and brought to CRAN (it seems this didn’t happen to emldown), because then I should probably stop developing codebook.