Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Seeing the polls results, we have a max number on the last slot (21-23.00 CEST) please save that in your calendar and I'll send an invite tomorrow.
    I'm also thinking on doing an earlier slot in the day (10.00-12.00 CEST) - and having 4 hours in total.
    I'll let you know tomorrow with the invitations. Cheers.
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Here is the link to a first early draft of the summary of discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/139vi8KCz2h0KyYfhN46SR7bEuJ3nggYgb1kaN6CNkSQ/edit?usp=sharing
    I share it with you before it is completed, because I find myself to busy with other obligations.
    The missing parts are: a summary of the discussion over the helpful questions and the section about the examples (case studies)
    You are welcome to contribute with "suggest" mode and we will discuss further the case studies during our workshop next week
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Concerning the workshop, I have sent the details on the FAIR4RS mailing list which I'll copy in this thread. If you want a calendar invite please add your email in this thread as well. Cheers.
    1 reply
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Hello all, a quick reminder that we have our workshop tomorrow (February 23rd) with two sessions. I'm sharing with you in advance the links to the notes, if you want to prepare your answers :-)
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    See you tomorrow
    Tom Honeyman
    @tom-h
    Or see you today for some (one?) of us :-)
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Good morning, we are starting in a few minutes the first meeting here: Join Zoom Meeting
    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85137111692?pwd=TnhOTVJpWUhaZ2Y0SFdiK2dZalUyZz09
    Meeting ID: 851 3711 1692
    Passcode: FAIR4RS
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Good evening, we are starting in a few minutes the first meeting here: Join Zoom Meeting
    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87268833227?pwd=eElYb2RRWHZsajVuUUdhTXRBVEJyUT09
    Meeting ID: 872 6883 3227
    Passcode: FAIR4RS
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Hi all, I was very busy the last few weeks and I had very little time to finish our report. I'm very glad to see the comments there and I suggested continue modifying the document until March 31st (a week from now). On the 31st I propose sending a an email to the FAIR4RS WG to review our report for a two weeks period (which brings us to April 14th). What do you think about this plan?
    Daniel Garijo
    @dgarijo
    Looks good to me!
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    ok
    Anna-Lena Lamprecht
    @annalenalamprecht
    yes, ok!
    Tovo_R
    @tovo:matrix.org
    [m]
    ok!
    Tom Honeyman
    @tom-h
    :thumbsup:
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Hi all, I have updated the report with a new diagram (there are two version, an obsolete one and newer version). some text has changed and some comments have been resolved. I will change the section of case studies to something else, since during the workshop we focused the questions and not the answers. To do so, I'm using a table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiJvxnqQpPltuGb4RaEbsRdhyjvvJMwQTX8vA32J9pg/edit?usp=sharing
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    Did you send the email to the group? I'm just wondering when we will have a final documents, as I'm working on some slides about the overall FAIR4RS group, and want to add something about this subgroup's work
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Dear all, I would like to apologies (yet again) on delays on my part. I haven't send the report yet to the FAIR4RS WG, because one of the section is still under construction. I'll try finishing it today and sending it to the full WG today or tomorrow. During the two weeks period I'll give the WG to comment, please feel free to continue the improvements of the document. Finally, I'll deposit the report into ArXiv or Zenodo before the end of the month (this might not be before RDA)...
    Daniel Garijo
    @dgarijo
    Thanks @moranegg !!
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Hi all, as you may noticed I didn't finalize our document yet and it is not archived yet with a PID. However, I was thinking about a remark Dan made in January about not having a definition at all and it got me questioning myself, was I too quick to decide it is not possible. After reviewing our many documents and discussions, I want to suggest a very short definition. I will put this definition in our summary report and open the document for comments/suggestion. I will also send this definition on the large WG mailing list if you accept it. Here it is:
    "Research Software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, workflows and executables that were created during the research process or for a research purpose. Software components that weren't created during or for research but are still used for research or on which Research Software depends on should be considered software in research and not Research Software. Nevertheless, reproducibility can be achieved if all the components (software and hardware) used during research are identified and made available. "
    I know the wording is a bit clumsy, feel free to improve
    feel free to shout - "this is not my definition of RS"
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    updated text: "Research Software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, workflows and executables that were created during the research process or for a research purpose. Software components which are used for research but weren't created during or for research or Software components on which Research Software depends upon should be considered software in research and not Research Software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. Nevertheless, reproducibility can be achieved if all the components (software and hardware) used during research are identified and made available."
    the definition was added in the last section
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    I've suggested one minor wording change and one more sustantial change in the document
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Thanks Dan, I tried integrating the new wording about computational reproducibility, I still have 2 open comments on wording.
    Daniel Garijo
    @dgarijo
    Thanks, @moranegg and @danielskatz I left a few comments in the doc, I think the second -third sentences are a little hard to digest. I agree with the definition besides that, so +1.
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Thanks @danielskatz @dgarijo @ljgarcia and @manodeep with your comments
    Here is the latest version: Research Software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, workflows and executables that were created during the research process or for a research purpose. Software components (i.e operating system, libraries, dependencies, software package, script, etc.) that are used for research but were not created during or with research clear intent should be considered software in research and not Research Software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. The minimal requirement for achieving computational reproducibility is that all the computational components (research software, software used in research, and hardware) used during the research are identified and are identified, described and made accessible to the extent that is possible.
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    I've suggested some small changes that I think improve the language
    Anna Niehues
    @NiehuesAnna_twitter
    Thanks @moranegg , I've made two comments on V2, suggesting minor changes in the choice of words. Overall, I think it's good to have this final definition - it reflects the different aspects from the discussion.
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Thank you @NiehuesAnna_twitter, @essepuntato for your comments
    Here is v3:
    Research Software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows and executables that were created during the research process or for a research purpose. Software components (e.g., operating systems, libraries, dependencies, packages, scripts, etc.) that are used for research but were not created during or specifically for research should be considered software in research and not Research Software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. The minimal requirement for achieving computational reproducibility is that all the computational components (Research Software, software used in research, and hardware) used during the research experiment are identified, described, and made accessible to the extent that is possible.
    all versions are still in the document if you want to see the evolution of the definition
    Daniel S. Katz
    @danielskatz
    looks nice
    Jez (he/him)
    @jez:petrichor.me
    [m]
    This looks great! 👍️
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    There is still one outstanding comment about the usage of the wording "research experiment", but apart this comment, I think we have reached consensus.
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    Please comment until the 15.00 CEST, I plan on sending the final version to the full WG
    2 replies
    Morane Gruenpeter
    @moranegg
    It is now 15.00 CEST... and here is the final version before WG feedback:
    "Research Software includes source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows and executables that were created during the research process or for a research purpose. Software components (e.g., operating systems, libraries, dependencies, packages, scripts, etc.) that are used for research but were not created during or specifically for research should be considered software in research and not Research Software. This differentiation may vary between disciplines. The minimal requirement for achieving computational reproducibility is that all the computational components (Research Software, software used in research, and hardware) used during the research are identified, described, and made accessible to the extent that is possible."