mention http://www.researchobject.org

[cranmer]

@eamonnmag mentioned
http://www.researchobject.org

It is very relevant and probably we should mention it like we do some of the other tools.
More importantly, I'm curious how what most clearly differentiates what we are proposing.

[eamonnmag]

Research object is more of a packaging of things. It cares little about running them directly. At the minute it uses ISATab (isa-tools.org) to do all the packaging of the metadata, then link things together like the workflows run, scripts etc. all through ISATab. This is then converted to RDF and that in essence is what constitutes the RO.

[cranmer]

Ok, well it's possible that we can build off of their packaging and then work more on the execution and composition part of it. In the proposal we are talking about tools to go from a bare working area and then package it up... so there is overlap with the proposal in that respect. I like a lot of what I saw in my brief time looking around the website. @khinsen @ctb @betatim any thoughts?

[khinsen]

Oops, I had completely forgotten about researchobject, though I was well aware of it. It has many similarities with my ActivePapers, but different priorities, to the point that I couldn't use it for my work.

We should indeed look into re-using their packaging and metadata handling. I suspect it won't fit everyone's needs (because I know it doesn't fit mine), so it might be one option out of several. For now (proposal time), all we can and should do is show that we are aware of it.

[eamonnmag]

So additional disclaimer, I worked on isa tools for years as the lead
software engineer. The same packaging (isatab) is used by natures
scientific data journal for lots of data types and also by gigascience who
you've already spoken to via Laurie. Anyway, what's good is that there is
already a good cross link.

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:51 Konrad Hinsen, notifications@github.com wrote:

Oops, I had completely forgotten about researchobject, though I was well
aware of it. It has many similarities with my ActivePapers
http://www.activepapers.org/, but different priorities, to the point
that I couldn't use it for my work.

We should indeed look into re-using their packaging and metadata handling.
I suspect it won't fit everyone's needs (because I know it doesn't fit
mine), so it might be one option out of several. For now (proposal time),
all we can and should do is show that we are aware of it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/betatim/openscienceprize/issues/98#issuecomment-190308759
.

[khinsen]

I'd say it's good that we have you on board :-)