Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis
Abstract Information integration and workflow technologies for data analysis have always been major fields of investigation in bioinformatics. A range of popular workflow suites are available to support analyses in computational biology. Commercial providers tend to offer prepared applications remot...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SpringerOpen
2017-11-01
|
Series: | Data Science and Engineering |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41019-017-0050-4 |
id |
doaj-dc6f615420f949e497aea96eb2551a47 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-dc6f615420f949e497aea96eb2551a472021-03-02T09:08:14ZengSpringerOpenData Science and Engineering2364-11852364-15412017-11-012323224410.1007/s41019-017-0050-4Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data AnalysisSteffen Möller0Stuart W. Prescott1Lars Wirzenius2Petter Reinholdtsen3Brad Chapman4Pjotr Prins5Stian Soiland-Reyes6Fabian Klötzl7Andrea Bagnacani8Matúš Kalaš9Andreas Tille10Michael R. Crusoe11Rostock University Medical Center, Institute for Biostatistics and Informatics in Medicine and Ageing ResearchDebian ProjectDebian ProjectDebian ProjectHarvard School of Public HealthUniversity Medical Center UtrechteScience Lab, School of Computer Science, The University of ManchesterMax-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary BiologyDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of RostockComputational Biology Unit, Department of Informatics, University of BergenDebian ProjectDebian ProjectAbstract Information integration and workflow technologies for data analysis have always been major fields of investigation in bioinformatics. A range of popular workflow suites are available to support analyses in computational biology. Commercial providers tend to offer prepared applications remote to their clients. However, for most academic environments with local expertise, novel data collection techniques or novel data analysis, it is essential to have all the flexibility of open-source tools and open-source workflow descriptions. Workflows in data-driven science such as computational biology have considerably gained in complexity. New tools or new releases with additional features arrive at an enormous pace, and new reference data or concepts for quality control are emerging. A well-abstracted workflow and the exchange of the same across work groups have an enormous impact on the efficiency of research and the further development of the field. High-throughput sequencing adds to the avalanche of data available in the field; efficient computation and, in particular, parallel execution motivate the transition from traditional scripts and Makefiles to workflows. We here review the extant software development and distribution model with a focus on the role of integration testing and discuss the effect of common workflow language on distributions of open-source scientific software to swiftly and reliably provide the tools demanded for the execution of such formally described workflows. It is contended that, alleviated from technical differences for the execution on local machines, clusters or the cloud, communities also gain the technical means to test workflow-driven interaction across several software packages.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41019-017-0050-4Continuous integration testingCommon workflow languageContainerSoftware distributionAutomated installation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Steffen Möller Stuart W. Prescott Lars Wirzenius Petter Reinholdtsen Brad Chapman Pjotr Prins Stian Soiland-Reyes Fabian Klötzl Andrea Bagnacani Matúš Kalaš Andreas Tille Michael R. Crusoe |
spellingShingle |
Steffen Möller Stuart W. Prescott Lars Wirzenius Petter Reinholdtsen Brad Chapman Pjotr Prins Stian Soiland-Reyes Fabian Klötzl Andrea Bagnacani Matúš Kalaš Andreas Tille Michael R. Crusoe Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis Data Science and Engineering Continuous integration testing Common workflow language Container Software distribution Automated installation |
author_facet |
Steffen Möller Stuart W. Prescott Lars Wirzenius Petter Reinholdtsen Brad Chapman Pjotr Prins Stian Soiland-Reyes Fabian Klötzl Andrea Bagnacani Matúš Kalaš Andreas Tille Michael R. Crusoe |
author_sort |
Steffen Möller |
title |
Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis |
title_short |
Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis |
title_full |
Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis |
title_sort |
robust cross-platform workflows: how technical and scientific communities collaborate to develop, test and share best practices for data analysis |
publisher |
SpringerOpen |
series |
Data Science and Engineering |
issn |
2364-1185 2364-1541 |
publishDate |
2017-11-01 |
description |
Abstract Information integration and workflow technologies for data analysis have always been major fields of investigation in bioinformatics. A range of popular workflow suites are available to support analyses in computational biology. Commercial providers tend to offer prepared applications remote to their clients. However, for most academic environments with local expertise, novel data collection techniques or novel data analysis, it is essential to have all the flexibility of open-source tools and open-source workflow descriptions. Workflows in data-driven science such as computational biology have considerably gained in complexity. New tools or new releases with additional features arrive at an enormous pace, and new reference data or concepts for quality control are emerging. A well-abstracted workflow and the exchange of the same across work groups have an enormous impact on the efficiency of research and the further development of the field. High-throughput sequencing adds to the avalanche of data available in the field; efficient computation and, in particular, parallel execution motivate the transition from traditional scripts and Makefiles to workflows. We here review the extant software development and distribution model with a focus on the role of integration testing and discuss the effect of common workflow language on distributions of open-source scientific software to swiftly and reliably provide the tools demanded for the execution of such formally described workflows. It is contended that, alleviated from technical differences for the execution on local machines, clusters or the cloud, communities also gain the technical means to test workflow-driven interaction across several software packages. |
topic |
Continuous integration testing Common workflow language Container Software distribution Automated installation |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41019-017-0050-4 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT steffenmoller robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT stuartwprescott robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT larswirzenius robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT petterreinholdtsen robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT bradchapman robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT pjotrprins robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT stiansoilandreyes robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT fabianklotzl robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT andreabagnacani robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT matuskalas robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT andreastille robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis AT michaelrcrusoe robustcrossplatformworkflowshowtechnicalandscientificcommunitiescollaboratetodeveloptestandsharebestpracticesfordataanalysis |
_version_ |
1724240003760914432 |