On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Jim McCusker
<jmccus...@5amsolutions.com> wrote:
> I would suggest using as much as possible from PROV, especially since other
> workflow engines (Taverna and Pegasus come to mind) already support it.
> Rather than looking for bibtex mappings in XML, we should be looking for
> vocabularies that represent the elements we need to represent, and the
> relevant bibtex should be generated from that. PROV and Dublin Core Terms
> can get us most of the way there, I think.
>
> Jim

This PROV ontology? http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
http://www.taverna.org.uk/documentation/taverna-2-x/provenance/
https://github.com/wf4ever/taverna-prov

It looks potentially relevant, but tackling a wider issue.
Are you aware of specific examples covering tool
citation within the context of workflow provenance?
I think many people (myself included) would find that
useful - a basic example for what might go into a
Galaxy Tool's XML file?

Maybe we need to CC some semantic web folk to advise...
or schedule a get together as a BoF at GCC2014? It
seems once a format is agreed, there is willingness
on the Galaxy side to start coding :)

Peter
___________________________________________________________
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/

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
  http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/

Reply via email to