ever reused a public workflow? Had no issues? Really?? Issues on reusing workflows Missing license Language syntax error Missing dependent materials Missing example input/output Missing test github.com/sapporo-wes/yevis-cli 2
forms, versioning, executability, and reuse. Carole Goble, Sarah Cohen-Boulakia, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Daniel Garijo, Yolanda Gil, Michael R. Crusoe, Kristian Peters, Daniel Schober (2020): FAIR Computational Workflows. Data Intelligence 2(1):108–121 https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00033 3
species An experimental method A laboratory instrument A computing environment Smaller communities often have more difficulties on building common resources How we can make and keep minor but valuable resources reusable? github.com/sapporo-wes/yevis-cli 8
maintained by their developers Domain knowledge is essential for managing contents BUT: Developers are often without extra time, skill, knowledge Provide an assistant for developers to lower the maintenance cost github.com/sapporo-wes/yevis-cli 9
one's own registry to share workflows in a reliable manner. Yevis metadata: assist developers to satisfy the requirements of 'reusable with confidence' Automatic validation and testing with CLI client and GitHub Actions Fully based on GitHub/Zenodo: no dedicated computing required Adapted the GA4GH TRS spec: promoting a distributed registry model github.com/sapporo-wes/yevis-cli 10
Main workflow description, Dependent materials, Testing materials, Open source license Validity Language type, Language version, Language syntax Traceability Authors and maintainers, Documentation, Workflow ID, Workflow metadata version github.com/sapporo-wes/yevis-cli 11