Comments on Workflow RO Crate spec

[fbacall]

https://github.com/workflowhub-eu/about/wiki/Workflow-RO-Crate

Please leave any comments here

[stain]

It was somewhat agreed to move that document to the wiki https://github.com/workflowhub-eu/about/wiki/Workflow-RO-Crate

[stuzart]

The relationship with the BioSchemaWorkflow specification (also being developed) isn't explicitly mentioned, and may be unclear to anybody unfamiliar with it.

[jmfernandez]

Hi, I'm missing an example of a workflow with a subjectOf, showing both an abstract CWL workflow and a concrete implementation (CWL, Nextflow, etc...)

[jmfernandez]

Also, I'm missing some mention about whether the input, output and parameter names of the abstract CWL and concrete implementation workflows should match. I guess the the inputs and outputs in abstract CWL are going to have the needed ontological annotations (for instance, from EDAM), as it is not assured the concrete implementation workflow format is able to document it properly.

[jmfernandez]

Last, some workflows in the wild usually include some accessory / optional initialization tasks to download and/or format reference databases, in order to work properly. Should the spec document that?

[stain]

"license" is given as a string (SPDX identifer?), but both https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/1.1/contextual-entities.html#licensing-access-control-and-copyright and https://schema.org/license says it should be a URL, meaning {"@id": "https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT"} or similar.

If this list of license identifiers are SPDX then the full URL should be better.

[ptsefton]

It is not clear at the top of the document whether this is intended to be generic -- I am assuming you can use this and NOT do the workflow-hub specific part. Can this be made clear?