Codemeta defines a ‘JSON-LD’ format for describing software metadata. This package provides utilities to generate, parse, and modify codemeta.jsonld files automatically for R packages.
Package: codemetar
Type: Package
Title: Generate CodeMeta Metadata for R Packages
Version: 0.1.0
Authors@R: person("Carl", "Boettiger", role=c("aut", "cre", "cph"), email="cboettig@gmail.com", comment="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1642-628X")
Description: Codemeta defines a 'JSON-LD' format for describing software metadata.
This package provides utilities to generate, parse, and modify codemeta.jsonld
files automatically for R packages.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: https://github.com/codemeta/codemetar
BugReports: https://github.com/codemeta/codemetar/issues
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
RoxygenNote: 6.0.1
Depends: R (>= 3.0.0)
Imports: jsonlite (>= 1.3),
jsonld,
git2r,
devtools,
methods,
stringi
Suggests: testthat,
jsonvalidate,
covr,
knitr,
rmarkdown,
httr,
magrittr,
readr,
xml2
VignetteBuilder: knitr
keywords: metadata, codemeta, ropensci, citation, credit
affiliation: https://ropensci.org
relatedLink: https://codemeta.github.io/codemetar
URL for the package (the development repository, not a stylized html page): https://github.com/codemeta/codemetar
Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under *and why(? (e.g., data retrieval, reproducibility. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
Package for creating and working with scientific software metadata
Academic researchers looking to create metadata for their software
Nope
Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
paper.md with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.[x] Does R CMD check (or devtools::check()) succeed? Paste and describe any errors or warnings:
[x] Does the package conform to rOpenSci packaging guidelines? Please describe any exceptions:
A few lines of code handle exceptional cases that are difficult to cover in unit tests. Otherwise no there should be no outstanding goodpractice flags in the repo.
If this is a resubmission following rejection, please explain the change in circumstances:
If possible, please provide recommendations of reviewers - those with experience with similar packages and/or likely users of your package - and their GitHub user names: