Initial Release for element-moseq

[MilagrosMarin]

This PR introduces the initial release for element-moseq version 0.1.0 to the DataJoint repository, adhering to the standardized practices across DataJoint Elements. Here's a summary of the changes:

Changelog and version:

• Added a CHANGELOG and version to document the changes made for this first release.

DevContainer Configuration:

• Added and tested DevContainer configuration for GitHub Codespaces.
• Mounted example_data from a deeplabcut project in the S3 bucket and validated in Codespaces.
• Incorporated setup.py with extras_require and tests functionalities.

GitHub Actions:

• Added GitHub Actions calling reusable workflows with .githubdirectory

Documentation:

• Integrated documentation in docs regarding element-moseq and Keypoint-MoSeq.
• Added README to align with DataJoint Elements standards.

Pipeline Development:

• Developed kpms_reader readers.
• Designed and executed the element_moseq pipeline architecture containing kpms_pca and kpms_model modules.

Images:

• Created flowchart and pipeline images in the images directory

Notebooks:

• Created a tutorial.ipynb notebook consistent with other DataJoint Elements.
• Validated tutorial imports in Codespaces.
• Introduced tutorial_pipeline.py to facilitate schema importation and activation.

Other files:

• Included spelling, markdown, and pre-commit configuration files.
• Added LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING, CODE_OF_CONDUCT files.

Code formatting:

• Applied Black formatting

This PR marks a significant milestone in the advancement of element-moseq, laying the groundwork for future enhancements and contributions.

[ttngu207]

@MilagrosMarin great work!
The design and implementation are well structured and cleanly executed.
I left a few comments.

For next steps, we will want to do some further cleanup, no major changes in the logic

1. rethink the naming
   • kpms_pca -> moseq_train
   • kpms_model -> moseq_inference
2. activate - we don't need to activate the 2 modules twice, as they go hand in hand (users can't use one without the other). We can use the same implementation as in element-calcium-imaging for scan and imaging modules

[kushalbakshi]

Looks great overall, @MilagrosMarin. Just a few changes in the docs section. I haven't looked through the tutorial yet but can do so after we've finalized all the table names and the logic in the make functions in these rounds of review.

[kushalbakshi]

Does this Element use the Device table? Or are we too far downstream to need this here?

[ttngu207]

Merging this first PR - new revisions will be in separate PRs

[ttngu207]

@MilagrosMarin I've add further review comments on this PR - please incorporate the changes to the new PR as well