From: Juliana Freire <juliana AT cs.utah.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:20:34 -0700
| Threading: | ↑ [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk • This Message |
Bertram and all, > I'm a bit concerned that many teams might still recover from the 1st > Challenge (talking here, at least in part for RWS and DAKS/COMAD). As Luc mentioned, the 1st phase should be easy since we have already done the work in the 1st Challenge. > > Also, I think the teams for the 2nd challenge might benefit from > digesting fully what was learned from the 1st one. For example, it > might be good to read each other's papers (pre-prints) as the become > available in Jan/Feb.. Yes, going through the pre-prints will be useful. And we can do that before we move on to the 2nd phase if they are released in Jan. > > Overall, I think it's a great idea to follow up on the 1st challenge > and revisit the same workflow for the 2nd challenge (taking into > account what was learned). Provenance interop sounds like a good > topic. Maybe in addition to interop issue for the 1st challenge > workflow, there could be a 2nd workflow that has advanced/alternative > processing requirements .. > > Or maybe "meta-teams" or new teams could suggest specific ↵ "workflow > patterns" and the provenance issues related to it. Patterns could > include, e.g., data-dependent branching, pipelined execution, > nested workflows, etc. Actually, I think a great outcome of this Challenge series would be a repository with different scenarios (workflows+provenance data) and queries, where each scenario/query combination exercises different features of provenance systems (e.g., the need for capturing workflow evolution; the need for annotations; 'invisible' side effects in workflow execution, etc.) Although we did not add this as part of the Challenge, it would be great if the different teams would contribute new scenarios. Juliana