diff options
author | Boud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl> | 2020-05-24 17:17:47 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Mohammad Akhlaghi <mohammad@akhlaghi.org> | 2020-05-29 01:12:51 +0100 |
commit | 61a8c9776d475006ea4e82b7be550941772b335b (patch) | |
tree | d2fcf2dc7df426eecf3ec6371dd6c428276e2321 | |
parent | 78e8632f58e9dc014f5d06ae3e9d77575a993861 (diff) |
Sentence with the clerk who can do it, software as uncountable noun
This commit changes two lines.
(1) Keeping the exact quote with the clerk while having a sentence that
makes sense in plain English cannot be done, it seems to me, without
making the sentence a bit longer. Here's one option that seems about
the best we can do, even though it still sounds a bit funny, because
it's hard to write a future conditional with the present "can". Since
it's a quote, it will probably survive the proofreaders.
(2) Software is an uncountable noun [1], so we say "software is", like
"water is"; "used software" sounds odd; I added "is itself" to
emphasise that we're especially talking about the full chain of
software for running the project. This commit modifies the "When the
..." sentence and hopefully sounds better.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/software#Noun
-rw-r--r-- | paper.tex | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ On a small scale, the criteria here are trivial to implement, but as the project \textbf{Criterion 5: Verifiable inputs and outputs.} The project should verify its inputs (software source code and data) \emph{and} outputs. -Expert knowledge should not be required to confirm a reproduction; such that ``\emph{a clerk can do it}''\cite{claerbout1992}. +Reproduction should be straightforward enough such that ``\emph{a clerk can do it}''\cite{claerbout1992}, without requiring expert knowledge. \textbf{Criterion 6: History and temporal provenance.} No exploratory research project is done in a single/first attempt. @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ This is related to longevity, because if a workflow only contains the steps to d Technically, reproducibility (as defined in \cite{fineberg19}) is possible with non-free or non-open-source software (a black box). This criterion is necessary to complement that definition (nature is already a black box). If a project is free software (as formally defined), then others can learn from, modify, and build on it. -When the project's used software are also free: +When the software used by the project is itself also free: (1) The lineage can be traced to the implemented algorithms, possibly enabling optimizations on that level. (2) The source can be modified to work on future hardware. In contrast, a non-free software package typically cannot be distributed by others, making it reliant on a single server (even without payments). |