- From: Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:11:49 +0100
- 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>
Phil yes - do not confuse Reproducibility with Repeatability or Reusability 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 13:12:33 UTC