Comments by IAA's AMIGA team implemented

The AMIGA team at the Instituto Astrofísica Andalucía (IAA) are very active
proponents of reproducibility. They had already provided very constructive
comments after my visit there and many subsequent interactions. So until
now, the whole team's contributions were acknowledged.

Since the last submission, several of the team members were able to kindly
invest the time in reading the paper and providing very useful comments
which are now being implemented. As a result, I was able to specifically
thank them in the paper's acknowledgments (Thanks a lot AMIGA!). Below, I
am listing the points in the order that is shown in 'git log -p -1' for
this commit.

- Javier Moldón: "PM is not defined. First appearance in the first page".

  Thanks for noticing this Javier, it has been corrected.

- Javier Moldón: "In Section III. PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR LONGEVITY and
  Appendix B, you mention the FAIR principles as desirable properties of
  research projects and solutions, respectively which is good, but may
  bring confusion. Although they are general enough, FAIR principles are
  specifically for scientific data, not scientific software. Currently,
  there is an initiative promoted by the Research Data Alliance (RDA),
  among others, to create FAIR principles adapted to research software, and
  it is called FAIR4RS (FAIR for Research Software). More information here:
  https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/fair-4-research-software-fair4rs-wg. In
  2020 there was a kick-off meeting to divide the work in 4 WG. There is
  some more information in this talk:
  https://sorse.github.io/programme/workshops/event-016/. I have been
  following the work of WG1, and they are about the finish the first
  document describing how to adapt the FAIR principles to software. Even if
  all this is still work in progress, I think the paper would benefit from
  mentioning the existence of this effort and noticing the diferences
  between Data and Software FAIR definitions."

  Thanks for highlighting this Javier, a footnote has been added for this
  (hopefully faithfully summarizing it into one sentence due to space
  limitations).

- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Would it be a good idea to define long-term as a
  period of time; for example, 5 years is a lot in the field of computer
  science (i.e. in terms of hardware and software aging), but maybe that is
  not the case in other domains (e.g. Astronomy)."

  Thanks Sebastian, in section 2, we do give longevity of the various
  "tools" in rough units of years (this was also a suggestion by a
  referee). But of course the discussion there is very generic, so going
  into finer detail would probably be too subjective and bore the reader.

- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Why do you use git commit eeff5de instead of git
  tags or releases for Maneage? Shown for example in the abstract of the
  paper: "This paper is itself written with Maneage (project commit
  eeff5de)."

  Thanks for raising this important point, a sentence has been added to
  explain why hashes are objective and immutable for a given history, while
  tags can easily be removed or changed, or not cloned/pushed at all.

- Susana Sanchez Exposito: "We think interoperability with other research
  projects would be important, do you have any plans to make maneage
  interoperable with, for example, the Common Workflow Language (CWL)?".

  Thanks a lot for raising this point Susana. Indeed, in the future I
  really do hope we can invest enough resources on this. In the discussion,
  I had already touched upon research objects as one method for
  interoperability, there was also a discussion on such generic standards
  in Appendix A.D.10. But to further clarify this point (given its
  importance), I mentioned CWL (and also the even more generic CWFR) in the
  discussion.

- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Regarding Apache Taverna, please see:"
  https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-engine/blob/master/README.md

  Thanks a lot for this note Sebastian! I didn't know this! I wrote this
  section (and visited their webpage) before their "vote"! It was a
  surprize to see that their page had changed. I have modified the
  explanation of Taverna to mention that it has been "retired" and use the
  Github link instead.

- Sebastian Luna Valero: "Page 21: 'logevity' should be 'longevity'."

  Thanks a lot for noticing this! It has been corrected :-).

- Javier Moldón: "There is a nice diagram in Johannes Köster's article on
  data processing with snakemake that I find very interesting to show some
  key aspects of data workflows: see Fig 1 in
  https://www.authorea.com/users/165354/articles/441233-sustainable-data-analysis-with-snakemake "

  This is indeed a nice diagram! I tried to cite it, but as of today, this
  link is not a complete paper (with no abstract and many empty section
  titles). If it was complete, I would certainly have cited it in
  Snakemake's discussion.

- Javier Moldón: "Regarding the problem mentioned in the introduction about
  PM not precisely identified all software versions, I would like to
  mention that with Snakemake, even if the analysis are usually constructed
  using other package managers such as conda, or containers, you don't need
  to depend on online servers or poorly-documented software versions, as
  you can now encapsulate an analysis in a tarball containing all the
  software needed. You still have long-term dependency problems (as you
  will need to install snakemake itself, and a particular OS), but at least
  you can keep the exact software versions for a particular platform."

  Thanks for highlighting this Javier. This is indeed better than nothing,
  we have already discussed the dangers of this "black box" approach of
  archiving binaries in many contexts, and many package managers have
  it. So while I really appreciate the point (I didn't know this), to avoid
  lengthening the paper, I think its fine to not mention it in the paper.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex b/tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex
index 0c9a1c2..a773322 100644
--- a/tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex
+++ b/tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex
@@ -441,8 +441,10 @@ GWL has two high-level concepts called ``processes'' and ``workflows'' where the
 Nextflow\footnote{\inlinecode{\url{https://www.nextflow.io}}} \citeappendix{tommaso17} workflow language with a command-line interface that is written in Java.
 
 \subsubsection{Generic workflow specifications (CWL and WDL)}
+\label{appendix:genericworkflows}
 Due to the variety of custom workflows used in existing reproducibility solution (like those of Appendix \ref{appendix:existingsolutions}), some attempts have been made to define common workflow standards like the Common workflow language (CWL\footnote{\inlinecode{\url{https://www.commonwl.org}}}, with roots in Make, formatted in YAML or JSON) and Workflow Description Language (WDL\footnote{\inlinecode{\url{https://openwdl.org}}}, formatted in JSON).
 These are primarily specifications/standards rather than software.
+At an even higher level solutions like Canonical Workflow Frameworks for Research (CWFR) are being proposed\footnote{\inlinecode{\href{https://codata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CWFR-position-paper-v3.pdf}{https://codata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/}}\\\inlinecode{\href{https://codata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CWFR-position-paper-v3.pdf}{CWFR-position-paper-v3.pdf}}}.
 With these standards, ideally, translators can be written between the various workflow systems to make them more interoperable.
 
 In conclusion, shell scripts and Make are very common and extensively used by users of Unix-based OSs (which are most commonly used for computations).