- From: Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:46 -0400
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
This discussion about provenance: "Lena: But software packages change so any reference to the software will be stale over the years. "Scott: Many types of provenance will go stale but essential information about the origins of the information (provenance), such as the method used to produce the p-values, is important to anyone reusing the data. They want to know whether it's from LIMMA or MANOVA, just as they want to know Affy vs. other types of arrays." seems to assume that provenance information will unavoidably get stale. I don't think that needs to be the case. With a little forethought, I think one can collect enough information that you have a good chance of unambiguously identifying something like a software package. If rather than "LIMMA" you record something like "LIMMA v3.4.4 Windows 64-bit" (or even better, a structured version of that), you should be able to trace even things which are version specific or platform/compiler specific. If the package has multiple methods that might have been used for a task, include a reference to the method/process also. Tom
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 20:50:13 UTC