Closed castedo closed 4 months ago
"well-encoded by gARG" is probably a bad description. Perhaps something more along the lines of "research data that benefits from gARG encoding". Perhaps this leads to a bit of a self-referential claim. But my hunch is you can clarify the a scope of research data analysis needs (benefiting from gARG) and then hard claim the tskit software is awesome within that scope.
It's a tricky bit of social engineering - I completely agree with you, but finishing up on strong claims may annoy some :shrug:
I think we'll keep the current slightly wishy-washy text, in the hope it avoids irritating the people we're trying to influence.
I agree with @jeromekelleher . A slightly alternative wording could go something like: "Adopting it as a community standard has the potential to ease software implementation....", but I have no strong feelings about that vs what we already have.
Feel free to close this issue.
This concluding sentence strikes me as needing clarification to be more useful to readers:
https://github.com/tskit-dev/what-is-an-arg-paper/blob/55986e675fdd2db3bf1687e0ac75e107c67b318b/paper.tex#L1834-L1836
I'm usually a fan of caveats and conveying uncertainty but the "may" here seems an indication that the concluding claim is not focused enough.
My feedback here comes from a baseline belief that tskit WILL ease software burden for researcher with data well encoded by gARG. Not a may ease, but will ease with a reasonable assumption of contemporary research software competency.
The ambiguity of the meaning of community standard adoption seems to me to weaken the strength of the claim from "will" to "may". I can agree there might be uncertainty as to how many researchers have data that is well encoded by gARG. But assuming a researcher has data that is well encoded by gARG, then it seems totally reasonable to hard advocate for tskit and claim is will, not may, easy software burden.