Generate review rOpenSci metadata

[cboettig]

@noamross Really like your suggestion about including a bit more about the review. Trying to think how best to do this using existing vocabularies, since it makes interoperability of data so much easier.

"review":  {
   "@type": "Review",
   "url": "https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/130",
   "provider": "http://ropensci.org"
                  }

I'm not sure what the right field is to indicate the status of the review (e.g. the in review, accepted etc), maybe status would be the term? Note that http://schema.org/Review defines the property reviewRating but that's obviously not the context we really have in mind here.

I've indicated ropensci as the provider (could be more verbose and indicate ropensci is an organization), note that it would be natural to include the review author & editor here too, (not clear if you'd list all, and of course that would be harder to scrape from the svg badge...)

Wanted to cc @mfenner on this too, Martin, any thoughts at a common vocabulary for describing reviews of scholarly works? Has this come up at all on your end?

[maelle]

happy to work on this @cboettig, if you assign it to me I could write the few lines of code necessary to scrape the badge :-)

[maelle]

Easiest solution = no review property as long as the package is only under review

[maelle]

and under review = issue open

[maelle]

Cf https://github.com/ropensci/codemetar/pull/93

Quite minimal implementation to be reviewed (😁 ) by you @cboettig .

• Cf https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding-meta/issues/49 for discussion of what to add for rOpenSci reviews

• Other functions could be used e.g. for JOSS reviews.

• If both rOpenSci and JOSS reviews are detected there could be "conflicts" since a package can be reviewed by both.

[maelle]

Given that you seemed happy with https://github.com/ropensci/codemetar/pull/93 @cboettig I'll change the milestone of that issue, since the minimal part for next release was done but the rest would be cool to have too, in particular list of reviewers.

[maelle]

I wrote in a comment above that there'd be a conflict if a package were reviewed by both rOpenSci and JOSS which is wrong since the review term can be a list.

[karthik]

I wrote in a comment above that there'd be a conflict if a package were reviewed by both rOpenSci and JOSS which is wrong since the review term can be a list.

Packages reviewed at rOpenSci are not reviewed a second time at JOSS.

[maelle]

👍

Actually when working on #176 I need to make sure not to count the review twice when there are both an rOpenSci and a JOSS badges.