Constraint-Guided Workflow Composition Based on the EDAM Ontology

Methods for the automatic composition of services into executable workflows need detailed knowledge about the application domain, in particular about the available services and their behavior in terms of input/output data descriptions. In this paper we discuss how the EMBRACE data and methods ontology (EDAM) can be used as background knowledge for the composition of bioinformatics workflows. We show by means of a small example domain that the EDAM knowledge facilitates finding possible workflows, but that additional knowledge is required to guide the search towards actually adequate solutions. We illustrate how the ability to flexibly formulate domain-specific and problem-specific constraints supports the workflow development process

Ontology of core concept data types for answering geo-analytical questions

In geographic information systems (GIS), analysts answer questions by designing workflows that transform a certain type of data into a certain type of goal. Semantic data types help constrain the application of computational methods to those that are meaningful for such a goal. This prevents pointless computations and helps analysts design effective workflows. Yet, to date it remains unclear which types would be needed in order to ease geo-analytical tasks. The data types and formats used in GIS still allow for huge amounts of syntactically possible but nonsensical method applications. Core concepts of spatial information and related geo-semantic distinctions have been proposed as abstractions to help analysts formulate analytic questions and to compute appropriate answers over geodata of different formats. In essence, core concepts reflect particular interpretations of data which imply that certain transformations are possible. However, core concepts usually remain implicit when operating on geodata, since a concept can be represented in a variety of forms. A central question therefore is: Which semantic types would be needed to capture this variety and its implications for geospatial analysis? In this article, we propose an ontology design pattern of core concept data types that help answer geo-analytical questions. Based on a scenario to compute a liveability atlas for Amsterdam, we show that diverse kinds of geo-analytical questions can be answered by this pattern in terms of valid, automatically constructible GIS workflows using standard sources

Preface

oai:journal.ub.tu-berlin.de:article/120

Perspectives on automated composition of workflows in the life sciences [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Scientific data analyses often combine several computational tools in automated pipelines, or workflows. Thousands of such workflows have been used in the life sciences, though their composition has remained a cumbersome manual process due to a lack of standards for annotation, assembly, and implementation. Recent technological advances have returned the long-standing vision of automated workflow composition into focus. This article summarizes a recent Lorentz Center workshop dedicated to automated composition of workflows in the life sciences. We survey previous initiatives to automate the composition process, and discuss the current state of the art and future perspectives. We start by drawing the “big picture” of the scientific workflow development life cycle, before surveying and discussing current methods, technologies and practices for semantic domain modelling, automation in workflow development, and workflow assessment. Finally, we derive a roadmap of individual and community-based actions to work toward the vision of automated workflow development in the forthcoming years. A central outcome of the workshop is a general description of the workflow life cycle in six stages: 1) scientific question or hypothesis, 2) conceptual workflow, 3) abstract workflow, 4) concrete workflow, 5) production workflow, and 6) scientific results. The transitions between stages are facilitated by diverse tools and methods, usually incorporating domain knowledge in some form. Formal semantic domain modelling is hard and often a bottleneck for the application of semantic technologies. However, life science communities have made considerable progress here in recent years and are continuously improving, renewing interest in the application of semantic technologies for workflow exploration, composition and instantiation. Combined with systematic benchmarking with reference data and large-scale deployment of production-stage workflows, such technologies enable a more systematic process of workflow development than we know today. We believe that this can lead to more robust, reusable, and sustainable workflows in the future.Stian Soiland-Reyes was supported by BioExcel-2 Centre of Excellence, funded by European Commission Horizon 2020 programme under European Commission contract H2020-INFRAEDI-02-2018 823830. Carole Goble was supported by EOSC-Life, funded by European Commission Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement H2020-INFRAEOSC-2018-2 824087. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Lorentz Center, ELIXIR, and the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) that made the workshop possible. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptPeer Reviewed"Article signat per 33 autors/es: Anna-Lena Lamprecht , Magnus Palmblad, Jon Ison, Veit Schwämmle , Mohammad Sadnan Al Manir, Ilkay Altintas, Christopher J. O. Baker, Ammar Ben Hadj Amor, Salvador Capella-Gutierrez, Paulos Charonyktakis, Michael R. Crusoe, Yolanda Gil, Carole Goble, Timothy J. Griffin , Paul Groth , Hans Ienasescu, Pratik Jagtap, Matúš Kalaš , Vedran Kasalica, Alireza Khanteymoori , Tobias Kuhn12, Hailiang Mei, Hervé Ménager, Steffen Möller, Robin A. Richardson, Vincent Robert9, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Robert Stevens, Szoke Szaniszlo, Suzan Verberne, Aswin Verhoeven, Katherine Wolstencroft "Postprint (published version

Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software

Research software is a fundamental and vital part of research, yet significant challenges to discoverability, productivity, quality, reproducibility, and sustainability exist. Improving the practice of scholarship is a common goal of the open science, open source, and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) communities and research software is now being understood as a type of digital object to which FAIR should be applied. This emergence reflects a maturation of the research community to better understand the crucial role of FAIR research software in maximising research value. The FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) Working Group has adapted the FAIR Guiding Principles to create the FAIR Principles for Research Software (FAIR4RS Principles). The contents and context of the FAIR4RS Principles are summarised here to provide the basis for discussion of their adoption. Examples of implementation by organisations are provided to share information on how to maximise the value of research outputs, and to encourage others to amplify the importance and impact of this work

Towards FAIR principles for research software

The FAIR Guiding Principles, published in 2016, aim to improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of digital research objects for both humans and machines. Until now the FAIR principles have been mostly applied to research data. The ideas behind these principles are, however, also directly relevant to research software. Hence there is a distinct need to explore how the FAIR principles can be applied to software. In this work, we aim to summarize the current status of the debate around FAIR and software, as basis for the development of community-agreed principles for FAIR research software in the future. We discuss what makes software different from data with regard to the application of the FAIR principles, and which desired characteristics of research software go beyond FAIR. Then we present an analysis of where the existing principles can directly be applied to software, where they need to be adapted or reinterpreted, and where the definition of additional principles is required. Here interoperability has proven to be the most challenging principle, calling for particular attention in future discussions. Finally, we outline next steps on the way towards definite FAIR principles for research software