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 <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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
>> >> >>