search

pharmaverse / sdtm.oak

An EDC and Data Standard agnostic SDTM data transformation engine that automates the transformation of raw clinical data in ODM format to SDTM based on standard mapping algorithms
https://pharmaverse.github.io/sdtm.oak/
Apache License 2.0
25 stars 7 forks source link

Package name #4

Closed ramiromagno closed 10 months ago

ramiromagno commented 11 months ago

Not sure if you were aware already but a package named {oak} had existed in CRAN. It is removed now:

https://cran.r-project.org/package=oak

available::available("oak")
#> ── oak ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
#> Name valid: ✔
#> Available on CRAN: ✖ 
#> Available on Bioconductor: ✔
#> Available on GitHub:  ✖ 
#> Abbreviations: http://www.abbreviations.com/oak
#> Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oak
#> Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oak
#> Sentiment:???
edgar-manukyan commented 11 months ago

Nice catch Ramiro, it caused us headaches in Roche specific version. The pgkdown was automatically linking to that archived CRAN package.

We ended up renaming into roak. Let's discuss this with the team on Wednesday or you can start a slack thread 😉

ramiromagno commented 11 months ago

Just sent an email to CRAN maintainers to check the policy in this regard.

ramiromagno commented 11 months ago

Already got an answer: briefly, the name is gone/taken, hence we can't use it.

From CRAN Repository policy:

Packages should be named in a way that does not conflict (irrespective of case) with any current or past CRAN package (the Archive area can be consulted), nor any current Bioconductor package. Package maintainers give the right to use that package name to CRAN when they submit, so the CRAN team may orphan a package and allow another maintainer to take it over.

So {oak.sdtm} it is? Other alternatives could also be: {cdisc.oak}, {cdisc.sdtm}, {cosa.oak} or {cosa.sdtm}, other variations?

edgar-manukyan commented 11 months ago

Thanks for checking Ramiro. Do you mind posting in Slack with the options? I think {sdtm.oak} is better since the package is about sdtm after all and we start with that name :) At the same time we still acknowledge its original name. Looking forward to team's opinions.

galachad commented 11 months ago

Should we change the repository name to sdtm.oak (pharmaverse/sdtm.oak)?

edgar-manukyan commented 10 months ago

Should we change the repository name to sdtm.oak (pharmaverse/sdtm.oak)?

As we agreed, @galachad, please change the repo to sdtm.oak.

ramiromagno commented 10 months ago

I am closing this issue as we have decided to move on with {sdtm.oak}. Also, issue #12 has been already created which will keep track of progress on the necessary changes following the package renaming.