RE: OMICtools of any use?

Hi everybody,

We have started to duplicate some entries for major versions, whenever the new version will affect the behavior of the tool (different algorithms, different command line, etc..). For instance, we have now a Bowtie and Bowtie2 tool page on OMICtools.

We do not have an expertise on all the bioinformatics fields (we cannot definitively be experts on 30,000 tools we have on our database). We just do our best, and we rely on our community to even do better. So, if you think ImageJ should have 2 entries, you just have to contact us directly and tell us. This is the best way to improve OMICtools and to correct what you think is wrong.

By the way, I asked to our team about the possibility to create pages like : https://omictools.com/OMICS_xxxxx

To allow you to directly link to us without using DuckDuckGo. This is in discussion and hope it will be accepted and implemented.

Best,

Fabien

Hi David,

On 20.12.18 01:35, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 00:04, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 13.12.18 13:29, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:15:11PM +0000, Carnë Draug wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 08:11, Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
>>>>> I noticed that you reverted a commit by Steffen Moeller in imagej adding
>>>>> an OMICtools identifyer. For the moment I do not think it is nice to
>>>>> simply remove the work of fellow DDs without a consensus how to deal
>>>>> with these data - thus I reverted that remove for the moment.
>>>> Please revert it again. I did not remove it because I'm disliking
>>>> omics. I reverted it because it's wrong. I did it the first time
>>>> during the summer:
>>>>
>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/415ff687c5
>>>>
>>>> But it was added again. I removed it yesterday for the same reason:
>>>>
>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/imagej/commit/a40be89995
>>>>
>>>> In both cases I have explained on the commit message why it was wrong.
>>> Uhmmm, sorry. I should have read the full commit message. I just have
>>> read your e-mail here and have seen your last commit. Sorry for the
>>> noise. I've now droped a Comment inside the YAML file (and I cross
>>> fingers that my importer code is robust enough to not stumble about it
>>> ;-) ).
>> The OMICtools entry is about all versions. Just have a look at the
>> references to the literature they give. You can argue that it should
>> have two entries for two major versions. I don't see the need for that,
>> I must admit. In my reading, the assignment was/would be just fine. The
>> inaccuracies is not our's, it is OMICtools. And many, me included, in
>> this case regard it as a feature.
>>
> Hi Steffen
>
> The OMICtools entry seems very specific for version 2.0.0. There's
> even an entry line for version.
Right. I read this as max(all versions out there).
> Both ImageJ 1 and 2 are still under development, are developed in
> different places by different people, and even have different
> licenses. They are not just two major versions of the same software.
Ok.
> ImageJ2 does encapsulate the ImageJ1 and the separation between
> the two is really muddy.
I sense that OMICtools had felt that this is why there should be only
a single entry for it.
> That entry would make more sense once ImageJ2 gets packaged
> in Debian and someone has already packaged imglib2.

Let's see what happens.

Cheers,

Steffen