Answers: <p>This question is almost certainly going to be closed &quot;off-topic&quot;, but since I have some experience with communities using CWL in the past, I'll provide my bit.</p>
  <p>First, a correction to your premise: CWL is a <em>standard</em>, which makes it different to most other <a href="https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language/wiki/Existing-Workflow-systems" rel="nofollow noreferrer">workflow tools</a>. It has several implementations. One of the main benefits is that it's platform-agnostic, making workflows highly-portable.</p>
  <p>As you can see <a href="https://www.commonwl.org/gallery/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">from their website</a>, the user community of this standard is heavily biased towards research communities. <a href="https://www.commonwl.org/implementations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Implementations</a> of the standards are de-facto default toolchains in several smaller communities, mostly in the bioinformatics domain, where workflows can become quite complex.</p>
  <p>There is a strong incentive to publish workflows so that</p>
  <ol>
  <li>workflows can be attributed correclty</li>
  <li>reproducibility can be tested.</li>
  </ol>
  <p>If you want to use Apache Airflow, there's an <a href="https://github.com/Barski-lab/cwl-airflow" rel="nofollow noreferrer">implementation of CWL for that</a></p>
  
Answers: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers: 2023-05-03T10:21:14.087Z
Answers: Thanks a lot (OMG, the number of alternatives). Do you mind expanding a bit on comparisons with the alternatives? Perhaps 'implementations of CWL _for_ a given tool' and "plain" CWL without needing the additional ones? - that is, if such a question makes sense. Otherwise, please state that such a way is not useful for reason a,b,c. :-)
Answers: Johan
Answers: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers: 2023-05-03T11:11:10.757Z
Answers: I think you'll find that at https://www.commonwl.org/implementations/
Answers: Bruce Becker
Answers: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers: 2023-05-03T10:03:48.883Z
Answers: 2023-05-03T10:03:48.883Z
Answers: Bruce Becker
Body: <p>Trying to get an overview of different languages and software for workflows and data pipelines--and thus 'data engineering'--I stumbled upon <a href="https://www.commonwl.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Common Workflow Language</a>. I thought, well, how common is this? - Got to ask the community, and I hope DevOps is appropriate.</p>
  <p>Does someone know how used this language is? Perhaps compared to Apache Airflow or other tools for workflows.</p>
  
Tags: <pipeline><workflow><apache-airflow>
Title: How widespread, used is CWL, common workflow language?
UserDisplayName: Johan
ThreadText: # How widespread, used is CWL, common workflow language?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-03)
  
  Trying to get an overview of different languages and software for workflows and data pipelines--and thus 'data engineering'--I stumbled upon [Common Workflow Language](https://www.commonwl.org/). I thought, well, how common is this? - Got to ask the community, and I hope DevOps is appropriate.
  
  Does someone know how used this language is? Perhaps compared to Apache Airflow or other tools for workflows.
  
  **Tags:** pipeline, workflow, apache-airflow
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2023-05-03. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  This question is almost certainly going to be closed "off-topic", but since I have some experience with communities using CWL in the past, I'll provide my bit.
  
  First, a correction to your premise: CWL is a *standard*, which makes it different to most other [workflow tools](https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language/wiki/Existing-Workflow-systems). It has several implementations. One of the main benefits is that it's platform-agnostic, making workflows highly-portable.
  
  As you can see [from their website](https://www.commonwl.org/gallery/), the user community of this standard is heavily biased towards research communities. [Implementations](https://www.commonwl.org/implementations) of the standards are de-facto default toolchains in several smaller communities, mostly in the bioinformatics domain, where workflows can become quite complex.
  
  There is a strong incentive to publish workflows so that
  
  1. workflows can be attributed correclty
  2. reproducibility can be tested.
  
  If you want to use Apache Airflow, there's an [implementation of CWL for that](https://github.com/Barski-lab/cwl-airflow)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks a lot (OMG, the number of alternatives). Do you mind expanding a bit on comparisons with the alternatives? Perhaps 'implementations of CWL _for_ a given tool' and "plain" CWL without needing the additional ones? - that is, if such a question makes sense. Otherwise, please state that such a way is not useful for reason a,b,c. :-)  
  > **username_1**: I think you'll find that at https://www.commonwl.org/implementations/  
  
  ---
  
  