On 25.10.17 18:52, Michael Crusoe wrote:
>
>
> 2017-10-25 19:21 GMT+03:00 Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de
> <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de>>:
>
>
> On 25.10.17 17:49, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2017-10-25 18:19 GMT+03:00 Matus Kalas <Matus.Kalas@uib.no
> <mailto:Matus.Kalas@uib.no>
> > <mailto:Matus.Kalas@uib.no <mailto:Matus.Kalas@uib.no>>>:
> >
> > On 2017-10-25 15:12, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> >
> > 2017-10-25 16:04 GMT+03:00 Steffen Möller
> > <steffen_moeller@gmx.de <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de> > <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de
>>>: > > <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.
> >
> > On 25.10.17 13:47, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-10-25 14:34 GMT+03:00 Steffen Möller
> > <steffen_moeller@gmx.de
> <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de> <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de
> <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de>>
> > <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de
> <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de>
de <mailto:steffen_moeller@gmx.de>>>>:
> >
> >
> > On 25.10.17 10:56, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I missed the bit where we are deprecating
> > RRID. Can
> >
> > someone
> >
> > explain?
> >
> > CWL tool descriptions can and should be maintained collectively;
> > preferably they are offered to upstream for inclusion just like
> other
> > Debian instigated patches and manual pages are sent up.
> I agree. And in a way this is why I find it problematic to statically
> ship those wrappers when there are newer versions already available on
> the CWL github. We need an update mechanism, I think, not only at
> build
> time but also for the already installed packages - but then again,
> this
> very much contradicts the concepts of a stable release. So, I
> still need
> to make my mind up about this all.
>
>
> CWL tool descriptions will stabilize quickly enough. CWL executors are
> not required to use the descriptions in /usr/share/commonwl (or any
> other location); they merely assist users in getting started with the
> software already on their system. At anytime they can write their own,
> download a different one, or copy and improve the system installed
> version.
Do the CWL wrappers ship with a URL from which to download the latest
version as part of the CWL description? Like a "this document lives
here" line that you may refer to as an "origin" field or so?
I skimmed through the CWL spec and could not find it. There was an issue
https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common- workflow-language/issues/170
that I interpreted as requesting the very same but I admit to have
somewhat failed to explicitly grasp how that schema would be adapted for
automated updates.
>
>
> >
> > Back to the topic: I agree with Steffen that if we mean the link
> > pairs as Provider + ID (as opposed to ID_type + ID_value), then
> > SciCrunch makes more sense than RRID.
>
>
> From https://identifiers.org/rrid/RRID:SCR_001156
>
> "Proper citation
>
> khmer, RRID:SCR_001156"
>
> So please don't strip off RRID :-)
I may be in demand of some further brainwash here. When put in a paper,
the "RRID:" prefix needs to appear. But for our Debian-internal
referencing that is in a single formal field not in a free text area,
and not together with any other identifiers, I was even tempted to omit
the "SRC_" and leading 0s :o)
Steffen