<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>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-03T10:21:14.087Z
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. :-)
Johan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-03T11:11:10.757Z
I think you'll find that at https://www.commonwl.org/implementations/
Bruce Becker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-03T10:03:48.883Z
2023-05-03T10:03:48.883Z
Bruce Becker
<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>

<pipeline><workflow><apache-airflow>
How widespread, used is CWL, common workflow language?
Johan
# 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/  

---

