Thanks for answer! So I prefer to implement CWL https://github.com/common-workflow-language
2016-03-11 16:28 GMT-05:00 Alan Williams <[email protected]>: > On 07-Mar-16 18:48, Willy Aguirre wrote: > >> Hi! >> > > Hello Willy > > Thank you for your interest in the Taverna GSOC issues. > > I'm Willy Aguirre from Lima Peru Actually I'm studing at UPC( >> http://epe.upc.edu.pe/) >> >> I don't have experience in Workflow System but I used BPMN (Bisagi) I >> think >> is new experience for me. >> >> I'm working as a java developer and also I used Play Framework 1.* it uses >> yaml >> >> https://pe.linkedin.com/in/willyaguirre >> >> I passed GSoC 2015 for Apache Aurora >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1164 >> >> I'm interesting in these ideas >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-881 >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-879 >> > > These two issues (881 and 879) are part of a group > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-900 for adding support for > the Common Workflow Language to Taverna. For information about CWL, please > follow the links in the description of 900. GSOC students are only expected > to do one, or maybe two, of the issues - so do not panic :) > > I think 879 consists of four sub-tasks. > > (a) creating small workflows corresponding to the calling of a single > Taverna activity, > > (b) putting a Taverna Command Line Tool that calls a Taverna workflow into > a docker image > > (c) creating a CWL configuration for the docker so that the Taverna > workflow can be run as part of a CWL workflow. > > The fourth task > > (d) extend the CWL reader so that it recognizes CWL processes that wrap > Taverna workflows and re-instate the Taverna workflow (or activity if a > single activity) > > depends on someone doing 877 and so obviously may not be done (if no one > does 877) or will require co-ordination. > > For 879, I think your proposal would be relatively easy to write as the > issue is well-organized. > > 881 (saving Taverna workflows as CWL) is less straight-forward and you > would need to put more work into how you would go about achieving the task, > especially how to have testable parts. > > For me (and other people will have different opinions), 879 is primarily a > programming issue, but 881 is more "software engineering". Which one you > choose to do will depend on what you would like to get out of GSOC. As you > have already done a programming GSOC, perhaps 879 would be a good challenge. > > The members of the dev mailing list will be able to help advise on any > questions / suggestions you have. > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1164> >> Cheers! >> Willy >> > > Thanks again for your interest. > > <https://pe.linkedin.com/in/willyaguirre> >> > > Alan > > -- Willy Aguirre | @willrre Blog: http://osgux.tumblr.com/ Mozilla Rep: https://reps.mozilla.org/u/Willy/ Mozilla Hispano - Willyaguirre <https://www.mozilla-hispano.org/documentacion/Usuario:Willyaguirre>
