Simplifying the development of portable, scalable, and reproducible workflows
Stephen PiccoloiD, Zachary E. Ence, Elizabeth C. AndersoniD, Jeffrey T. ChangiD, Andrea H. BildiD
Abstract
Command-line software plays a critical role in biology research. However, processes for installing and executing software differ widely. The Common Workflow Language (CWL) is a community standard that addresses this problem. Using CWL, tool developers can formally describe a tools inputs, outputs, and other execution details in a manner that fosters use of shared computational methods and reproducibility of complex analyses. CWL documents can include instructions for executing tools inside software containers--isolated, operating-system environments. Accordingly, CWL tools are portable--they can be executed on diverse computers--including personal workstations, high-performance clusters, or the cloud. This portability enables easier adoption of bioinformatics pipelines. CWL supports workflows, which describe dependencies among tools and using outputs from one tool as inputs to others. To date, CWL has been used primarily for batch processing of large datasets, especially in genomics. But it can also be used for analytical steps of a study. This article explains key concepts about CWL and software containers and provides examples for using CWL in biology research. CWL documents are text-based, so they can be created manually, without computer programming. However, ensuring that these documents confirm to the CWL specification may prevent some users from adopting it. To address this gap, we created ToolJig, a Web application that enables researchers to create CWL documents interactively. ToolJig validates information provided by the user to ensure it is complete and valid. After creating a CWL tool or workflow, the user can create "input-object" files, which store values for a particular invocation of a tool or workflow. In addition, ToolJig provides examples of how to execute the tool or workflow via a workflow engine.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 12
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Field percentile
- top 15%
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- CWL-Airflow: a lightweight pipeline manager supporting Common Workflow Language
Michael Kotliar, Andrey V. Kartashov, Artem Barski·GigaSciencePeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2019
- Building containerized workflows using the BioDepot-workflow-builder (Bwb)
Ling‐Hong Hung, Jiaming Hu, … Ka Yee Yeung·Cell SystemsPeer-reviewed·Sep 11, 2019
- Practical computational reproducibility in the life sciences
Björn Andreas Grüning, John M. Chilton, … James Taylor·Cell SystemsPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2018
- NextflowWorkbench: Reproducible and Reusable Workflows for Beginners and Experts
Jason P. Kurs, Manuele Simi, Fabien Campagne·bioRxiv·Mar 28, 2016
- Maloja: simple and scalable Snakemake workflow orchestration in the cloud
Joseph Giustizia, Wilson Hodgson, … Tony Kess·bioRxiv·Jun 28, 2024
- A framework for collaborative computational research
Apuã C. M. Paquola, Jennifer A. Erwin, Fred H. Gage·bioRxiv·Dec 9, 2015