W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Towards a cyberinfrastructure for the biological sciences: progress, visions and challenges

From: Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:11:49 +0100
Message-ID: <48B6A415.4040806@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
CC: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Marco Roos <M.Roos1@uva.nl>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, mygrid@listserv.manchester.ac.uk, myexperiment-discuss@nongnu.org, Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>


yes - do not confuse Reproducibility with Repeatability or Reusability


Carole Goble
University of Manchester. UK
>>>>>> "KC" == Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu> writes:
>   KC> Peter Ansell wrote:
>   >> Wiki's explicitly allow for a permanent link to a particular version of
>   >> something. Hopefully an implementation of a wiki-like workflow editor
>   >> online, will have similar characteristics so that you can still use a
>   >> particular version to reproduce a past result if you need to, provided
>   >> the web services still exist and haven't changed their interface ;-) It
>   >> would also be nice to be able to get corrected versions via the wiki
>   >> mechanism though and that would suit the Web 2.0 way, as opposed to
>   >> publications to which corrections are hard to make.
>   >> 
>   >> 
>   >> 
>   KC> If some journals are requiring raw data (e.g., microarray data) to be
>   KC> submitted to a public data repository, I wonder if workflows that are
>   KC> used to analyze the data should also be submitted to a public workflow
>   KC> repository.
> It's a nice idea but doesn't quite allow the same level of repeatability. Most
> taverna workflows need updating periodically, as the services go offline or
> change their interfaces. Even if they don't, they return different results as
> the implementation changes. 
> Ultimately, you need to store more than the workflow to allow any degree of
> repeatability. Still, it would be a good step forward which is no bad thing. 
> Phil
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 13:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:37 UTC