- From: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:01:34 -0400
- To: Carole Goble <carole.goble@manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, 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>
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 14:02:16 UTC