Hey Fabian, Thank you for your enthusiasm, I agree!
FYI: the easiest way to find a CWL description is to do a Google **and** GitHub search for the tool name along with "cwlVersion" (which is required in all CWL v1+ documents). Cheers, Pe 15 aug. 2017 1:10 p.m., "Fabian Klötzl" <[email protected]> a scris: Hi all, On 11.08.2017 17:57, Steffen Möller wrote: > I had an exchange with Stian yesterday about what CWL workflow of his > database he would propose to use as an experience-gathering example. He > proposed the GATK workflow by Farah Zaib Khan et al. for being good to > cite about workflows and reproducibility. I think providing CWL workflows in debian is a great idea. However, I have another use case in mind: We know that bioinformatics is mostly converting from one file format to the other. Given the EDAM annotation which has already been added to various packages, one can propose the user tools to do the conversion. If we had CWL tool descriptions, one would be able to tell the user how to call the tool to achieve the desired effect. With a fitting workflow one would be able to do the conversion automatically. The combination of CWL + EDAM provides some very nice synergistic effects. However, the lack of annotated tools might make achieving the functionality, as stated above, a big effort. Neither bio.tools, nor the CWL repo contain enough entries to really be useful. Borrowing from the other discussion, Appstream might be a way to let the author of a tool provide this metadata, relieving the packagers of some work. Hope this text was somewhat comprehensible; My thoughts on this are still in a rough state. Best, Fabian
