Consolidate phrasing around text data

[maelle]

Caught by @eliocamp @paocorrales @yabellini

In the dev guide we have "text data" https://devdevguide.netlify.app/softwarereview_policies.html#package-categories

In the submission template we have "text analysis" https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/A-submit-software-for-review.md

What should it actually be? "text data analysis"? @noamross

cc @mpadge

[mpadge]

My English grammar dictator would say, "Analysis of textual data," but that's clunky, so I'd tend for simply "text analysis" in both.

[noamross]

I actually think that we should remove the geospatial and text data categories. Both were experimental built around specific interest groups that we had explicit support for and had active folks helping shepherd (Scott building packages for web geospatial formats, Lincoln and others in the R text analysis working group, which is no longer a thing). Thoughts, @ropensci/editors?

[yabellini]

Some of the projects of our champions come from the geospatial world.

[noamross]

Are they general geospatial data type manipulation or about access to or processing of geospatial data sets? The latter would definitely still be in scope. This is less of an issue in any case for geospatial than for text, which we always described as a pilot.

[yabellini]

Both: one is an extension to a rgee package for accessing and processing GEE API from R. The other uses some geospatial dataset and processes that info (weather data, survey data)

[tdhock]

In machine learning we talk about "natural language processing" which is a kind of text data analysis.