spring cleaning

[fabian-s]

I'd like to suggest a renovation of the package list and its structure, i.e.

• weeding out packages that are no longer maintained / poor quality / etc
• adding missing packages
• restructuring sections into sub-sections where sensible

We are experts in different sub-fields of FDA, so if everybody focuses their attention on their specialties this should be quick and easy. Please use the spring-cleaning branch for your suggested changes. Looking forward to see what we come up with :)

[fabian-s]

suggestions for regression: https://github.com/cran-task-views/FunctionalData/commit/81cddfe87a371673f05d708aa46dd817f82fb0db

[jdtuck]

I like the change to the regression section. I am thinking about the overall packages currently.

[julia-wrobel]

What about adding a visualization and / or exploratory data section too? I think some of the packages currently in the General section could fall under visualization or FDA

[fabian-s]

What about adding a visualization and / or exploratory data section too?

ooh, yeah. good idea!

I think some of the packages currently in the General section could fall under visualization or FDA

which ones would you say?

[julia-wrobel]

which ones would you say?

rainbow, refund.shiny (which I put in the "other" section), fdaoutlier (if we make this section Visualization/EDA)

[jdtuck]

I like the visualization idea, I would argue form your latest commit that fdasrvf is a general practice as it implements way more than alignment in the SRVF framework

[fabian-s]

@julia-wrobel agreed! If you'd like to make this change I think you can go ahead, both Derek & me support it and nobody objected.

@jdtuck yeah, I think so too, that's why fdasrvf is currently listed in both the "General" and the "Registering" sections. I don't think the task view people mind that we list core packages multiple times if they fit into more than one category. I think it makes sense to also keep fdasrvf in the "Registering" section because IMO that's where your package really shines and if somebody is looking specifically for registration implementations they should be able to find it under that heading.

[fabian-s]

and sorry -- I realize maybe I should have organized this differently so we don't overwrite each other's commits.

pull requests with specific change sets and discussions about them would have been better than one branch into which everybody commits. I'll do better next time.

[jdtuck]

Sounds good, yes pull requests under this issue would be a good approach (I also screwed it up).

[jdtuck]

started a couple of branches and pull requests for what we identififed.

[julia-wrobel]

@jdtucker That's fair, I'm happy to keep fdasrvf it in both the general and alignment sections. I'm thinking of also adding a data section..

[fabian-s]

I'm thinking of also adding a data section..

oh yeah. don't know any other data packages for FD beyond fds but if they exist let's list them

[jdtuck]

I don't either, I should just put my data repo into a package at some point....