Core packages? about ctv-archaeology

[SCSchmidt]

The documentation says "The views are intended to have a sharp focus so that it is sufficiently clear which packages should be included (or excluded) - and they are not meant to endorse the "best" packages for a given task." -- if they are not meant to endorse "the best" package, I'd say they are supposed to be a comprehensive list.

[benmarwick]

Just to be sure we are all looking at the same thing, the draft CTV that we are discussing is here: https://github.com/benmarwick/ctv-archaeology/blob/master/Archaeology.md which is sharply focussed on packages that do things that are mostly distinct to archaeology or mostly used by archaeologists. This is the one we plan to submit to CRAN.

The question would appreciate your input on is what packages among that list should be designated as core. So far we have rcarbon as a core package, which I think is deserving because it is uniquely well-documented, well-used, and frequently cited. Please let me know if you are aware of other packages by/for archaeologists that are similar to rcarbon in those respects.

Our draft CTV list is distinct from the older, longer list of packages in the readme which I believe isn't suitable for an official CTV, according to the current guidelines, because it's too broad.

[SCSchmidt]

Yes, I agree, I would struggle to define core packages. Maybe we just ignore it?

[benmarwick]

I think it's worth to have some designated as core to help novices decide which package to start with when there are several that seem quite similar. From my perspective the criteria for identifying core packages is that they are very well documented, and there is evidence of extensive use in the community. So a novice will be well supported by documentation from the package authors, and they can easily find and study examples of other researchers using the package.

I believe this is the case with packages for dealing with C14 ages, there are several developed by archaeologists and others, but there is a good case for rcarbon to be a starting point for a novice because it is so well documented, and has been so widely used by archaeologists in many publications. I think those qualities make it unique among packages doing C14 calibration.

[nfrerebeau]

Perhaps we can try to highlight one package per section based on these same qualities (documentation + usage)?

[benmarwick]

That's a great idea, one package per section as core, yes! From my perspective rcarbon is pretty unique in terms of documentation quality and use indicated by citation. The tesselle packages are unique in the quality of documentation, and used in teaching (at least by me, perhaps others too?), they'd be good candidates for core also.

Let's check in with the others, would you like to nominate a package per section as core, considering documentation and use? @scpederzani @SCSchmidt @lolosp @lsteinmann @LiYingWang @bbartholdy @joeroe

[joeroe]

I agree that it would be helpful to highlight core packages, and/or to have some selection criteria in general. Is this supposed to be a comprehensive list, or more of a curated set of recommendations?

[bbartholdy]

It looks like other CTVs have only a handful of core packages, anywhere from 5-15, so one per section might be a bit much. Maybe we should focus on the sections specific to archaeology, since these will have more limited overlap than, e.g., Reproducible research.

Based on previous proposals it seems like it is important to have clear selection criteria for the (core) packages, and these should not be subjective.