diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | tex/src/appendix-existing-tools.tex | 2 |
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). |