[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: using `alternatives` for aligners and assemblers and promoting common interfaces



You may be interested in the http://nucleotid.es/http://bioboxes.org/ efforts.
Bonus, the harmonized interface can be described using the Common Workflow Language (whose 1.0 release just occurred); it is likely that you could represent the conversion using CWL itself.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Afif Elghraoui <afif@debian.org> wrote:
Hi, all,

Another thought that has been floating around in my head: we have many
read aligners, variant/consensus callers, genome assemblers, and other
such tools that do the same job with different algorithms. I think it
makes sense to try to  manage them as alternatives[1] and work towards
standardizing their interfaces.

I also think that the variation in interfaces for these similar tools is
not because of any developer's attachment to them, but because there's
no real guideline for what to do (like, how to pass the reference
sequence-- some say -r while others might say --referenceFile).

On the other hand, besides better organization and potentially more
intuitive interfaces, I'm not sure whether undertaking this is worth the
effort. Are there any strong feelings about this?

regards
Afif


1. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianAlternatives


--
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name




--
Michael R. Crusoe
Community Engineer & Co-founder
Common Workflow Language project
https://impactstory.org/u/0000-0002-2961-9670
michael.crusoe@gmail.com
+32 (0) 2 808 25 58
+1 480 627 9108

Reply to: