Skip to content

Conversation

@mpadge
Copy link
Member

@mpadge mpadge commented Dec 12, 2025

Fix #478

@maelle I think this sufficiently addresses #478, but I worry that it's a bit too wordy now, so feel free to make it shorter. I really like the blog link you gave, and tried to put it in in a way that didn't need any extra words.

@mpadge mpadge requested a review from maelle December 12, 2025 08:40
@maelle maelle requested a review from noamross December 12, 2025 08:54
@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Dec 12, 2025

@mpadge can you please mention this issue in #editors-only?

Awesome, thanks!

Co-authored-by: Jon Harmon <[email protected]>
@maelle maelle changed the title Update scope for data retrieval pacakges; closes #478 Update scope for data retrieval packages Dec 15, 2025
Copy link
Member

@maelle maelle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

- **data retrieval**: Packages for accessing and downloading data from online sources with scientific applications.
Our definition of scientific applications is broad, including data storage services, journals, and other remote servers, as many data sources may be of interest to researchers.
However, retrieval packages should be focused on data *sources* or *topics*, rather than *services*, and should do [more than just download data](https://ropensci.org/blog/2022/06/16/publicize-api-client-yes-no).
For example a general client for Amazon Web Services data storage would not be in-scope, nor would a package which only offered download functionality without any pre-processing or pre-filtering.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would https://docs.ropensci.org/riem/ still be in scope? Really minimal processing, just checking an airport exists for instance.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know, but most important is that scope evolves, and so all packages remain valid and implicitly in scope according to the time they were first judged. Scope decisions are immutable, and are not revisited.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm just curious, to help polish the new text.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update the scope for API wrappers

4 participants