Kei yes - reproducibility is predicated on preservability -- that is one of Phil's points Carole > > Hi Carole et al., > > Does preservability relate to the 3 R's? > > -Kei > > Carole Goble wrote: >> Phil >> >> er.... which bit of "I agree" with you don't you get? :-) :-) >> >> I agree with you! That is why we have a whole programme of work with >> BioCatalogue for workflow monitoring, workflow decay management, >> service monitoring, sharing data using packs in myExperiment and >> e-Labs etc..... >> >> >> Carole >> >>> >>> Carole >>> >>> I don't confuse the concepts, although I sometimes get the names >>> mixed up. >>> In this case, uploading a workflow (taverna or otherwise) is not >>> going to >>> guarantee either. I would not expect the workflow that you gave me >>> last year >>> would necessarily either run now, nor give me the same results for >>> the same >>> input. >>> Of course, this is true in general for any computational artifact; >>> in the case >>> of something like Java (with it's "forwardly compatibility") if it >>> doesn't, >>> then this defined to be a bug. In the case of other languages. In >>> the case of >>> workflows, I guess, we have to take the W3C line on 404 and say it's >>> a feature >>> not a bug. >>> >>> Not that this means that I think that submissions of workflows is a >>> bad idea. >>> I just think that they are going to be affected by the ravages of >>> time even >>> more quickly than raw data is. >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> "Carole" == Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk> writes: >>>>>>>> >>> >>> Carole> Phil >>> >>> Carole> yes - do not confuse Reproducibility with Repeatability or >>> Carole> Reusability >>> >>> Carole> Carole >>> >>> Carole> 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 14:08:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 August 2008 14:08:17 GMT