2. Under the form of a web tool built by and for the community of  bioimage analysis and developers experts

point to demonstrate: the webtool and its content is built by a newly established community, essential now to the field of biology, in a bottom-up approach
Webtool is the entry point to the knowledge database constructed by the experts: It provides an interface for searching, parsing, adding or editing entries metadata about the tools.
Example: taggathons are organized to boost the content, (give the list of participants of all taggathons in annexe, with background?) ; Number of taggers , evolution of tagging over time. In addition, people can contribute by adding descriptions of new tools. If the description of the tools are of sufficient quality (criteria of good quality of curation), taggers become confirmed/commissioned  taggers and can also edit other entries. Anyone can contribute + quality check. The community have been constructed/reinforced/defined thanks to the Neubias Cost action. The webtool models are constructing by reaching a consortium during taggathon meeting and exchange platform.
For now mainly European taggers but also to open widely (show graph affiliation country of taggers?). Show biologist which were trained and then became taggers?
Show the willingness of people to contribute (graph of new entries every month over years, graph of access, graph of edition..)
Show the support of other community ? (ask Empiar or IDR) : referring to the webtool entries?
Curation quality could go here?
Supplementary material: quality criteria workflow of roles?