Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Hwang, L

A Fresh Look at FAIR for Research Software

Authors: Daniel S. Katz, Morane Gruenpeter, Tom Honeyman, Lorraine Hwang, Mark D. Wilkinson, Vanessa Sochat, Hartwig Anzt, Carole Goble, for FAIR4RS Subgroup 1

Abstract: This document captures the discussion and deliberation of the FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) subgroup that took a fresh look at the applicability of the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship for research software. We discuss the vision of research software as ideally reproducible, open, usable, recognized, sustained and robust, and then review both the charac… ▽ More This document captures the discussion and deliberation of the FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) subgroup that took a fresh look at the applicability of the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship for research software. We discuss the vision of research software as ideally reproducible, open, usable, recognized, sustained and robust, and then review both the characteristic and practiced differences of research software and data. This vision and understanding of initial conditions serves as a backdrop for an attempt at translating and interpreting the guiding principles to more fully align with research software. We have found that many of the principles remained relatively intact as written, as long as considerable interpretation was provided. This was particularly the case for the "Findable" and "Accessible" foundational principles. We found that "Interoperability" and "Reusability" are particularly prone to a broad and sometimes opposing set of interpretations as written. We propose two new principles modeled on existing ones, and provide modified guiding text for these principles to help clarify our final interpretation. A series of gaps in translation were captured during this process, and these remain to be addressed. We finish with a consideration of where these translated principles fall short of the vision laid out in the opening. △ Less

Submitted 9 February, 2021; v1 submitted 26 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Nine Best Practices for Research Software Registries and Repositories: A Concise Guide

Authors: Task Force on Best Practices for Software Registries, :, Alain Monteil, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Alexandros Ioannidis, Alice Allen, Allen Lee, Anita Bandrowski, Bruce E. Wilson, Bryce Mecum, Cai Fan Du, Carly Robinson, Daniel Garijo, Daniel S. Katz, David Long, Genevieve Milliken, Hervé Ménager, Jessica Hausman, Jurriaan H. Spaaks, Katrina Fenlon, Kristin Vanderbilt, Lorraine Hwang, Lynn Davis, Martin Fenner, Michael R. Crusoe , et al. (8 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Scientific software registries and repositories serve various roles in their respective disciplines. These resources improve software discoverability and research transparency, provide information for software citations, and foster preservation of computational methods that might otherwise be lost over time, thereby supporting research reproducibility and replicability. However, developing these r… ▽ More Scientific software registries and repositories serve various roles in their respective disciplines. These resources improve software discoverability and research transparency, provide information for software citations, and foster preservation of computational methods that might otherwise be lost over time, thereby supporting research reproducibility and replicability. However, developing these resources takes effort, and few guidelines are available to help prospective creators of registries and repositories. To address this need, we present a set of nine best practices that can help managers define the scope, practices, and rules that govern individual registries and repositories. These best practices were distilled from the experiences of the creators of existing resources, convened by a Task Force of the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group during the years 2019-2020. We believe that putting in place specific policies such as those presented here will help scientific software registries and repositories better serve their users and their disciplines. △ Less

Submitted 24 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: 18 pages

Software Citation Implementation Challenges

Authors: Daniel S. Katz, Daina Bouquin, Neil P. Chue Hong, Jessica Hausman, Catherine Jones, Daniel Chivvis, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Stephan Druskat, Martin Fenner, Tom Gillespie, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Morane Gruenpeter, Ted Habermann, Robert Haines, Melissa Harrison, Edwin Henneken, Lorraine Hwang, Matthew B. Jones, Alastair A. Kelly, David N. Kennedy, Katrin Leinweber, Fernando Rios, Carly B. Robinson, Ilian Todorov , et al. (2 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: The main output of the FORCE11 Software Citation working group (https://www.force11.org/group/software-citation-working-group) was a paper on software citation principles (https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86) published in September 2016. This paper laid out a set of six high-level principles for software citation (importance, credit and attribution, unique identification, persistence, accessibilit… ▽ More The main output of the FORCE11 Software Citation working group (https://www.force11.org/group/software-citation-working-group) was a paper on software citation principles (https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86) published in September 2016. This paper laid out a set of six high-level principles for software citation (importance, credit and attribution, unique identification, persistence, accessibility, and specificity) and discussed how they could be used to implement software citation in the scholarly community. In a series of talks and other activities, we have promoted software citation using these increasingly accepted principles. At the time the initial paper was published, we also provided guidance and examples on how to make software citable, though we now realize there are unresolved problems with that guidance. The purpose of this document is to provide an explanation of current issues impacting scholarly attribution of research software, organize updated implementation guidance, and identify where best practices and solutions are still needed. △ Less

Submitted 21 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Report on the Fourth Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4)

Authors: Daniel S. Katz, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Sandra Gesing, Lorraine Hwang, Wolfgang Bangerth, Simon Hettrick, Ray Idaszak, Jean Salac, Neil Chue Hong, Santiago Núñez Corrales, Alice Allen, R. Stuart Geiger, Jonah Miller, Emily Chen, Anshu Dubey, Patricia Lago

Abstract: This report records and discusses the Fourth Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, the mission and vision statements that were drafted at the workshop and finalized shortly after it, a set of idea papers, position papers, experience papers, demos, and lightning talks, and a pa… ▽ More This report records and discusses the Fourth Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, the mission and vision statements that were drafted at the workshop and finalized shortly after it, a set of idea papers, position papers, experience papers, demos, and lightning talks, and a panel discussion. The main part of the report covers the set of working groups that formed during the meeting, and for each, discusses the participants, the objective and goal, and how the objective can be reached, along with contact information for readers who may want to join the group. Finally, we present results from a survey of the workshop attendees. △ Less

Submitted 18 May, 2017; v1 submitted 7 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Report on the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3)

Authors: Daniel S. Katz, Sou-Cheng T. Choi, Kyle E. Niemeyer, James Hetherington, Frank Löffler, Dan Gunter, Ray Idaszak, Steven R. Brandt, Mark A. Miller, Sandra Gesing, Nick D. Jones, Nic Weber, Suresh Marru, Gabrielle Allen, Birgit Penzenstadler, Colin C. Venters, Ethan Davis, Lorraine Hwang, Ilian Todorov, Abani Patra, Miguel de Val-Borro

Abstract: This report records and discusses the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, which served as an overview of sustainable scientific software. It also summarizes a set of lightning talks in which speakers highlighted to-the-point lessons and challenges pertaining to sustain… ▽ More This report records and discusses the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, which served as an overview of sustainable scientific software. It also summarizes a set of lightning talks in which speakers highlighted to-the-point lessons and challenges pertaining to sustaining scientific software. The final and main contribution of the report is a summary of the discussions, future steps, and future organization for a set of self-organized working groups on topics including developing pathways to funding scientific software; constructing useful common metrics for crediting software stakeholders; identifying principles for sustainable software engineering design; reaching out to research software organizations around the world; and building communities for software sustainability. For each group, we include a point of contact and a landing page that can be used by those who want to join that group's future activities. The main challenge left by the workshop is to see if the groups will execute these activities that they have scheduled, and how the WSSSPE community can encourage this to happen. △ Less

Submitted 6 February, 2016; originally announced February 2016.

Standing Together for Reproducibility in Large-Scale Computing: Report on reproducibility@XSEDE

Authors: Doug James, Nancy Wilkins-Diehr, Victoria Stodden, Dirk Colbry, Carlos Rosales, Mark Fahey, Justin Shi, Rafael F. Silva, Kyo Lee, Ralph Roskies, Laurence Loewe, Susan Lindsey, Rob Kooper, Lorena Barba, David Bailey, Jonathan Borwein, Oscar Corcho, Ewa Deelman, Michael Dietze, Benjamin Gilbert, Jan Harkes, Seth Keele, Praveen Kumar, Jong Lee, Erika Linke , et al. (30 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This is the final report on reproducibility@xsede, a one-day workshop held in conjunction with XSEDE14, the annual conference of the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE). The workshop's discussion-oriented agenda focused on reproducibility in large-scale computational research. Two important themes capture the spirit of the workshop submissions and discussions: (1) organiz… ▽ More This is the final report on reproducibility@xsede, a one-day workshop held in conjunction with XSEDE14, the annual conference of the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE). The workshop's discussion-oriented agenda focused on reproducibility in large-scale computational research. Two important themes capture the spirit of the workshop submissions and discussions: (1) organizational stakeholders, especially supercomputer centers, are in a unique position to promote, enable, and support reproducible research; and (2) individual researchers should conduct each experiment as though someone will replicate that experiment. Participants documented numerous issues, questions, technologies, practices, and potentially promising initiatives emerging from the discussion, but also highlighted four areas of particular interest to XSEDE: (1) documentation and training that promotes reproducible research; (2) system-level tools that provide build- and run-time information at the level of the individual job; (3) the need to model best practices in research collaborations involving XSEDE staff; and (4) continued work on gateways and related technologies. In addition, an intriguing question emerged from the day's interactions: would there be value in establishing an annual award for excellence in reproducible research? △ Less

Submitted 2 January, 2015; v1 submitted 17 December, 2014; originally announced December 2014.

MSC Class: 68N01 ACM Class: D.2.9