Stian Soiland-Reyes

Sean R. Wilkinson, Johan Gustafsson, Finn Bacall et al.

Computational workflows represent major investments of effort and expertise. As first-class, publishable research objects of their own, they are key to sharing methodological know-how for reuse, reproducibility, and transparency. Thus, the application of the FAIR Principles to workflows is inevitable to enable them to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Making workflows FAIR reduces duplication of effort, assists in the reuse of best practice approaches and community-supported standards, and ensures that workflows as digital objects can support reproducible, robust science. FAIR workflows draw from both FAIR data and software principles, and they help ensure and support data FAIRification. The FAIR Principles emphasize the association of persistent identifiers and machine-actionable metadata with workflows. Implementing the Principles requires a framework with appropriate programmatic protocols and an accompanying ecosystem of services, tools, policies, and best practices, as well the buy-in of existing workflow systems. The European EOSC-Life Workflow Collaboratory is an example of such a digital infrastructure for the Biosciences. It includes a metadata standards framework for describing workflows that is managed and used by dedicated new FAIR workflow services and programmatic APIs for interoperability and metadata access. It includes the WorkflowHub registry and LifeMonitor workflow testing service, and it incorporates existing workflow systems and packaging solutions. Here, we introduce the FAIR Principles for workflows and connect FAIR workflows with the FAIR ecosystems they inhabit with the EOSC-Life Collaboratory as a concrete example. We also introduce other community efforts that are easing the ways that workflows are shared and reused by others, and we discuss how the variations in different workflow settings impact their FAIR perspectives.

Jeremy Leipzig, Daniel Nüst, Charles Tapley Hoyt et al.

Reproducible computational research (RCR) is the keystone of the scientific method for in silico analyses, packaging the transformation of raw data to published results. In addition to its role in research integrity, RCR has the capacity to significantly accelerate evaluation and reuse. This potential and wide-support for the FAIR principles have motivated interest in metadata standards supporting RCR. Metadata provides context and provenance to raw data and methods and is essential to both discovery and validation. Despite this shared connection with scientific data, few studies have explicitly described the relationship between metadata and RCR. This article employs a functional content analysis to identify metadata standards that support RCR functions across an analytic stack consisting of input data, tools, notebooks, pipelines, and publications. Our article provides background context, explores gaps, and discovers component trends of embeddedness and methodology weight from which we derive recommendations for future work.

Paolo Ciccarese, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Tim Clark

Scholars have made handwritten notes and comments in books and manuscripts for centuries. Today's blogs and news sites typically invite users to express their opinions on the published content; URLs allow web resources to be shared with accompanying annotations and comments using third-party services like Twitter or Facebook. These contributions have until recently been constrained within specific services, making them second-class citizens of the Web. Web Annotations are now emerging as fully independent Linked Data in their own right, no longer restricted to plain textual comments in application silos. Annotations can now range from bookmarks and comments, to fine-grained annotations of a selection of, for example, a section of a frame within a video stream. Technologies and standards now exist to create, publish, syndicate, mash-up and consume, finely targeted, semantically rich digital annotations on practically any content, as first-class Web citizens. This development is being driven by the need for collaboration and annotation reuse amongst domain researchers, computer scientists, scientific publishers, and scholarly content databases.

Hyde Zhang, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Carole Goble

Researchers are often on the move, say at conferences or projects meetings, and as workflows are becoming ubiquitous in the scientific process, having access to scientific workflows from a mobile device would be a significant advantage. We therefore have developed Taverna Mobile, an application for Android phones which allows browsing of existing workflows, executing them, and reviewing the results. Taverna Mobile does not aim to reproduce the full experience of building workflows in the Taverna Workbench, rather it focuses on tasks we have deemed relevant to a scientist that is not at her desk. For instance, when visiting a conference she might hear about someone's workflow, which she can quickly locate and mark for later exploration. When in the biology lab, faced with updated scientific data, the scientist can rerun her own workflow with new inputs. While commuting, she can monitor the status of a long-running job.

Paolo Ciccarese, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Khalid Belhajjame et al.

Provenance is a critical ingredient for establishing trust of published scientific content. This is true whether we are considering a data set, a computational workflow, a peer-reviewed publication or a simple scientific claim with supportive evidence. Existing vocabularies such as DC Terms and the W3C PROV-O are domain-independent and general-purpose and they allow and encourage for extensions to cover more specific needs. We identify the specific need for identifying or distinguishing between the various roles assumed by agents manipulating digital artifacts, such as author, contributor and curator. We present the Provenance, Authoring and Versioning ontology (PAV): a lightweight ontology for capturing just enough descriptions essential for tracking the provenance, authoring and versioning of web resources. We argue that such descriptions are essential for digital scientific content. PAV distinguishes between contributors, authors and curators of content and creators of representations in addition to the provenance of originating resources that have been accessed, transformed and consumed. We explore five projects (and communities) that have adopted PAV illustrating their usage through concrete examples. Moreover, we present mappings that show how PAV extends the PROV-O ontology to support broader interoperability. The authors strived to keep PAV lightweight and compact by including only those terms that have demonstrated to be pragmatically useful in existing applications, and by recommending terms from existing ontologies when plausible. We analyze and compare PAV with related approaches, namely Provenance Vocabulary, DC Terms and BIBFRAME. We identify similarities and analyze their differences with PAV, outlining strengths and weaknesses of our proposed model. We specify SKOS mappings that align PAV with DC Terms.