[Esip-preserve] Some Suggestions on Provenance Work

[Hua, Hook (388C)]

Regarding the comments on workflow and provenance: the Services Interoperability and Orchestration subgroup in the NASA TechInfusion Working Group has been working on a comparison of popular workflows used in Earth science. We've also started adding facets on provenance as well and are looking for more community input. We want to assess the impact of various workflows, their interoperability, and their support of provenance.

NASA Technology Infusion Working Group (TIWG): Workflow Comparison 2010
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlQ95ca89UmYdEZJcXVYdGIxMkotSGwxcFA3OFJYenc&hl=en#gid=0

We want to get more community input on their experiences with workflows and provenance. The spreadsheet is open to anyone to edit and add their input. If we get enough useful input from the community, we will show this as a poster at ESDSWG meeting.

This is continuation work from the ESIP talk on "Workflow Engines: Why So Many?"
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Workflow_Engines:_Why_So_Many%3F

--Hook


________________________________
From: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes at nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:28:24 -0700
To: <esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org>
Cc: Rahul Ramachandran <rramachandran at itsc.uah.edu>
Subject: Re: [Esip-preserve] Some Suggestions on Provenance Work

On 09/03/10 11:08, alicebarkstrom at verizon.net wrote:
> I sent the following note to Dr. Ramachandran before the
> teleconference on provenance tracking (or at least the parts
> identified in 1 through 3). At that point, I felt that we did not
> need a new working group and still feel that way. However, here are
> some work items on provenance that I think need to be picked up:

> 1. There are a number of workflow and provenance tracking tools,
> including Earth science workbench (Frew), Sciflow, Kepler, Taverna,
> and others. It might be useful to prepare an intercomparison of
> these tools - particularly whether they are intended primarily for
> ad hoc (or exploratory) data production or whether they might be
> adapted to use on the high-throughput production paradigms, as well
> as what kind of "database" technology they use (relational, XML,
> flat file, RDF, triple store, etc.) You could regard this as a
> preliminary form of marketing analysis, where it would be useful to
> ask how many different kinds of Earth science data have been run
> through the tool, how robust it is, and how much it will cost to
> buy, adapt, and run. I suspect this would be a useful paper if it
> can be done in a reasonable length of time (say less than six months
> to submission).

Hook Hua did a very nice overview of workflow engines in an ESIP
Webinar.  More info, including his slides are here:

    http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Workflow_Engines:_Why_So_Many%3F

Another pass at this using his work as a base could result in a nice
paper.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20100920/921657b3/attachment.html>