Hi all,

Just my 2 cents.

This is a really great idea to have dynamically (down-)loadable datatypes, and 
a tool config tag to express a datatype dependency is right on the money.  I 
agree with Greg in having hesitations about adding that feature though.  The 
purpose (at least as far I see it) of the tool shed is to allow the community 
to share its productivity.  New tools written by one group can be used by 
another group that may not have adequate skill, resources, or time to create 
the same tool on their own.  One issue this model can suffer from, however, is 
over-proliferation of contributions.  In this case, new tools with the same, 
overlapping, or very similar functions might be developed independently by 
multiple groups who then want to contribute to the tool shed.  I don't know how 
often this situation arises or what official contingencies are in place to 
manage them, but it is important to manage that situation carefully.  If it 
occurs with any appreciable frequency, then eventually there are many clusters 
of tools available that do almost the same thing but not quite.  This is bad 
for the user, bad for the maintainer, complicates communication between 
researchers, etc.  This model can work nicely if the frequency of very simliar 
tool submissions is small, and even better if there is some management for 
cleaning out broken or redundant tools.

When you allow custom datatypes to enter the picture, however, the story can 
become hairy much more quickly.  Having a limited set of officially supplied / 
supported datatypes forces the contributors of new tools to use datatypes drawn 
from a standard set.  Without that constraint, the number of datatype variants 
could explode.  Now the concern is not only that multiple contributors may 
submit very similar tool variants, or that each of them might choose to create 
their own datatypes to optimize their methods, but also that contributors of 
tools which are functionally dissimilar but manipulate the same general types 
of data will write their tools using new datatypes that are variants of each 
other.  Tools are essentially typed by the datatypes they accept and produce, 
so you won't be able to chain these tools together very easliy at all.  Most 
pairs of tools will have the "wrong" datatype, on input or output, for what a 
user wants to do.  The general trend is then proliferation of clusters of 
redundant tools, clusters of redundant datatypes, and growing sparsity in the 
"tool graph" (think of datatypes as vertices and tools as directed 
[hyper]edges).

So, a move in the direction of supporting something like a "TypeShed" would 
require careful consideration consist of at least either a well defined policy 
for managing *Shed rot and capability to execute it or a very slick tool / 
datatype versioning system with flexible control for users and some also very 
slick method for maintaining implicit conversions between the datatypes in a 
datatype cluster (ideally automatically generated).  I think at least the 
implicit conversion part can be done, even if not in a fully automated manner, 
then by a combination of policy and engineering.  For policy, you can define, 
identify, or construct a canonical datatype in each cluster and require that a 
contributor of a variant datatype submit methods for implicit conversion 
to/from the canonical datatype in that cluster.  One idea that could help 
reduce complexity is to potentially place some additional structure on 
datatypes and take the canonical datatype for a cluster to be a form of the 
union (mathematical, not the "union" from C) of the variants in the cluster, 
which would simplify implicit conversations somewhat.  Or, if there's some 
reason for this, there can also be a set of "canonical" datatypes for each 
cluster, so long as they are all guaranteed to be mutually implicitly 
convertible.  For a policy to manage *Shed rot, the most direct approach is to 
moderate and require approval for each submission, but I could imagine that 
responsibility quickly overwhelming the poor team responsible.  Unless I 
drastically overestimate the frequency with which submissions might be made 
(which is entirely possible), that poor team's operations could wind up looking 
not unlike the USPTO.

Anyway, my general point is that there are many non-trivial factors to consider 
in the question of creating a TypeShed.  But, if done right, the benefits could 
be huge, besides the likely awesomeness of the engineering involved.

Finally, let me echo Greg again, and say to please send additional thought and 
feedback.  What do you think about the points I raised?  What else is there to 
consider that hasn't occurred to me yet?  What would be the benefits and 
potential pitfalls?

Best,
Eric

________________________________________
From: galaxy-dev-boun...@lists.bx.psu.edu [galaxy-dev-boun...@lists.bx.psu.edu] 
on behalf of Jim Johnson [j...@umn.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:06 PM
To: galaxy-dev@lists.bx.psu.edu
Cc: Greg Von Kuster
Subject: Re: [galaxy-dev] Tool shed and datatypes

Greg,

It would be great if there were a way to expand upon the core datatypes using 
the ToolShed.

Would it be possible to have a separate datatype repository within the ToolShed?

Datatype
   name=""
   description=""
   datatype_dependencies=[]
   definition=<python code>


The tool config could be expanded to have requirement for datatypes.
    <requirement type="datatype">ssmap</requirement>




Table datatype
    Column    |            Type             |                     Modifiers
-------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
  id          | integer                     | not null default 
nextval('datatype_id_seq'::regclass)
  name        | character varying(255)      |
  version     | character varying(40)       |
  description | text                        |
  definition  | text                        |
UNIQUE (name)

Table datatype_datatype_association
    Column    |            Type             |                     Modifiers
-------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
  id          | integer                     | not null default 
nextval('datatype_id_seq'::regclass)
  datatype_id | integer                     |
  requires_id | integer                     |
FOREIGN KEY (datatype_id) REFERENCES datatype(id)
FOREIGN KEY (requires_id) REFERENCES datatype(id)


Then for my mothur metagenomics tools I could define:

name="ssmap"   description="Secondary Structure Map"  version="1.0"  
datatype_dependencies=[tabular]
definition=
from galaxy.datatypes.tabular import Tabular
class SecondaryStructureMap(Tabular):
     file_ext = 'ssmap'
     def __init__(self, **kwd):
         """Initialize secondary structure map datatype"""
         Tabular.__init__( self, **kwd )
         self.column_names = ['Map']

     def sniff( self, filename ):
         """
         Determines whether the file is a secondary structure map format
         A single column with an integer value which indicates the row that 
this row maps to.
         check you make sure is structMap[10] = 380 then structMap[380] = 10.
         """
...




Then the align.check.xml tool_config could require the 'ssmap' datatype:

<tool id="mothur_align_check" name="Align.check" version="1.19.0">
  <description>Calculate the number of potentially misaligned 
bases</description>
  <requirements>
    <requirement type="binary">mothur</requirement>
    <requirement type="datatype">ssmap</requirement>
   </requirements>









> John,
>
> I've been following this message thread, and it seems it's gone in a 
> direction that differs from your initial question about the possibility for 
> Galaxy to handle automatic editing of the datatypes_conf.xml file when 
> certain Galaxy tool shed tools are automatically installed.  There are some 
> complexities to consider in attempting this.  One of the issues to consider 
> is that the work for adding support for a new datatype to Galaxy lies outside 
> of the intended function of the tool shed.  If new support is added to the 
> Galaxy code base, an entry for that new datatype should be manually added to 
> the table at the same time.  There may be benefits to enabling automatic 
> changes to datatype entries that already exist in the file (e.g., adding a 
> new converter for an existing datatype entry), but perhaps adding a 
> completely new datatype to the file may not be appropriate.  I'll continue to 
> think about this - send additional thought and feedback, as doing so is 
> always helpful
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Duddy, John wrote:
>
>> One of the things we’re facing is the sheer size of a whole human genome at 
>> 30x coverage. An effective way to deal with that is by compressing the FASTQ 
>> files. That works for BWA and our ELAND, which can directly read a 
>> compressed FASTQ, but other tools crash when reading compressed FASTQ 
>> filesfiles. One way to address that would be to introduce a new type, for 
>> example “CompressedFastQ”, with a conversion to FASTQ defined. BWA could 
>> take both types as input. This would allow the best of both worlds – 
>> efficient storage and use by all existing tools.
>>
>> Another example would be adding the CASAVA tools to Galaxy. Some of the 
>> statistics generation tools use custom file formats. To be able to make the 
>> use of those tools optional and configurable, they should be separate from 
>> the aligner, but that would require that Galaxy be made aware of the custom 
>> file formats – we’d have to add a datatype.
>>
>> John Duddy
>> Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> Illumina, Inc.
>> 9885 Towne Centre Drive
>> San Diego, CA 92121
>> Tel: 858-736-3584
>> E-mail: jduddy at illumina.com
>>
>> From: Greg Von Kuster [mailto:greg at bx.psu.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:25 PM
>> To: Duddy, John
>> Cc: galaxy-dev at lists.bx.psu.edu
>> Subject: Re: [galaxy-dev] Tool shed and datatypes
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> The Galaxy tool shed currently is not enabled to automatically edit the 
>> datatypes_conf.xml file, although I could add this feature if the need 
>> exists.  Can you elaborate on what you are looking to do regarding this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Duddy, John wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can we introduce new file types via tools in the tool shed? It seems Galaxy 
>> can load them if they are in the datatypes configuration file. Does tool 
>> installation automate the editing of that file?
>>
>>
>> John Duddy
>> Sr. Staff Software Engineer
>> Illumina, Inc.
>> 9885 Towne Centre Drive
>> San Diego, CA 92121
>> Tel: 858-736-3584
>> E-mail: jduddy at illumina.com
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
>> in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
>> and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
>>
>>  http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
>>
>> Greg Von Kuster
>> Galaxy Development Team
>> greg at bx.psu.edu
>>
___________________________________________________________
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

  http://lists.bx.psu.edu/

___________________________________________________________
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

  http://lists.bx.psu.edu/

Reply via email to