From: "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000
| Threading: | • This Message → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from carole.goble AT manchester.ac.uk → RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from barga AT microsoft.com → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from juliana AT cs.utah.edu |
Hello again, During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that we develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and issues not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such queries, related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of data etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. They aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, but are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add them! Thanks, Simon P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we captured many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, physicists, computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our project in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in Journal of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website www.pasoa.org
From: "Bertram Ludaescher" <ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:20:10 -0800
| Threading: | ↑ [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk • This Message → RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu → RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ysimmhan AT cs.indiana.edu |
Hi Simon and all: Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a "multi-phase" ↵ one, with the first phase ending in January. 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). I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually plans to participate in the second challenge: (a) with the current schedule (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) 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.. thoughts? 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. Bertram >>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: SM> SM> Hello again, SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that we SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and issues SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such queries, SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of data SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. They SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, but SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. SM> SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries SM> SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add them! SM> SM> Thanks, SM> Simon SM> SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we captured SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, physicists, SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our project SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in Journal SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website SM> www.pasoa.org
From: Carole Goble <carole.goble AT manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:30:23 +0000
| Threading: | ↑ [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk • This Message |
Bertram This is a coincidence -- we also discussed this in the myGrid planning meeting today as we are concerned that we do not have the resources to set aside for the challenge and produce the Taverna 1.5 release, esp. as Jun, Duncan and Antoon are writing up their PhDs right now and Sky isn't up to speed as he has just started. So we are seriously considering withdrawing from the second challenge. Carole > Hi Simon and all: > > Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a ↵ "multi-phase" one, > with the first phase ending in January. > > 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). > > I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually ↵ plans > to participate in the second challenge: > (a) with the current schedule > (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. > > For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd > challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) > > 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.. > > thoughts? > > 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. > > Bertram > > >>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> > SM> > SM> Hello again, > SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that we > SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and issues > SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such ↵ queries, > SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of ↵ data > SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. ↵ They > SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, but > SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. > SM> > SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries > SM> > SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add ↵ them! > SM> > SM> Thanks, > SM> Simon > SM> > SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we ↵ captured > SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, physicists, > SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our ↵ project > SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper > SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in ↵ Journal > SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website > SM> www.pasoa.org > >
From: "Ewa Deelman" <deelman AT isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:49:27 -0800
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu • This Message → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from L.Moreau AT ecs.soton.ac.uk → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from benc AT hawaga.org.uk |
Hi, I agree that it would be beneficial to digest the first challenge. I would for example like to have the time to read the papers that describe the various approaches. Also, with many proposal deadlines in the US in January and early February it would be very hard if not impossible to participate in this upcoming challenge. Thanks, -Ewa -----Original Message----- From: owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info [mailto:owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info] On Behalf Of Carole Goble Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:30 AM To: provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info Cc: June Finch; daniele turi; Jun Zhao; rds AT cs.man.ac.uk; Duncan Hull; Antoon Goderis; Qiuwei Yu Subject: Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop Bertram This is a coincidence -- we also discussed this in the myGrid planning meeting today as we are concerned that we do not have the resources to set aside for the challenge and produce the Taverna 1.5 release, esp. as Jun, Duncan and Antoon are writing up their PhDs right now and Sky isn't up to speed as he has just started. So we are seriously considering withdrawing from the second challenge. Carole > Hi Simon and all: > > Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a ↵ "multi-phase" one, > with the first phase ending in January. > > 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). > > I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually ↵ plans > to participate in the second challenge: > (a) with the current schedule > (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. > > For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd > challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) > > 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.. > > thoughts? > > 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. > > Bertram > > >>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> > SM> > SM> Hello again, > SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that we > SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and issues > SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such queries, > SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of data > SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. They > SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, but > SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. > SM> > SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries > SM> > SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add them! > SM> > SM> Thanks, > SM> Simon > SM> > SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we captured > SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, physicists, > SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our project > SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper > SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in Journal > SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website > SM> www.pasoa.org > >
From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:19:48 +0000
| Threading: | ↑ RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu • This Message |
We've been working on the basis of what we agreed at the last workshop. 1. We were aiming for a workshop in June. 2. The first phase, consisting of exporting data from the first challenge, - did not require much work (because we did the work at the first challenge) - is a prerequisite to do any thinking in terms of one-to-one integration I agree with Ewa that it would be nice to read the papers of the first challenge. They will become available at the same time as we propose the provenance traces to be made available. It is all complementary. Luc Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau AT ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm Ewa Deelman wrote: > Hi, > I agree that it would be beneficial to digest the first challenge. I > would for example like to have the time to read the papers that describe > the various approaches. Also, with many proposal deadlines in the US in > January and early February it would be very hard if not impossible to > participate in this upcoming challenge. > Thanks, > -Ewa > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info > [mailto:owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info] On Behalf Of Carole Goble > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:30 AM > To: provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info > Cc: June Finch; daniele turi; Jun Zhao; rds AT cs.man.ac.uk; Duncan Hull; > Antoon Goderis; Qiuwei Yu > Subject: Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from > Washington workshop > > Bertram > > This is a coincidence -- we also discussed this in the myGrid planning > meeting today as we are concerned that we do not have the resources to > set aside for the challenge and produce the Taverna 1.5 release, esp. as > > Jun, Duncan and Antoon are writing up their PhDs right now and Sky isn't > > up to speed as he has just started. > > So we are seriously considering withdrawing from the second challenge. > > Carole > > >> Hi Simon and all: >> >> Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a ↵ "multi-phase" one, >> with the first phase ending in January. >> >> 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). >> >> I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who ↵ actually plans >> to participate in the second challenge: >> (a) with the current schedule >> (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. >> >> For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd >> challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) >> >> 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.. >> >> thoughts? >> >> 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. >> >> Bertram >> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>>>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> ↵ wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> SM> >> SM> Hello again, >> SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested ↵ that >> > we > >> SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and >> > issues > >> SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such >> > queries, > >> SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption ↵ of >> > data > >> SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. >> > They > >> SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, >> > but > >> SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. >> SM> >> SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries >> SM> >> SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to ↵ add >> > them! > >> SM> >> SM> Thanks, >> SM> Simon >> SM> >> SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we >> > captured > >> SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, >> > physicists, > >> SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our >> > project > >> SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper >> SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in >> > Journal > >> SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website >> SM> www.pasoa.org >> >> >> > > >
From: Roger Barga <barga AT microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:10:06 -0800
| Threading: | ↑ [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk • This Message |
I recently changed groups and it is going to take me a couple months to transition into my new position and convince my new colleague to participate. We should be active again in April, at the latest. roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info ↵ [mailto:owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info] On Behalf Of Carole Goble Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:30 AM To: provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info Cc: June Finch; daniele turi; Jun Zhao; rds AT cs.man.ac.uk; Duncan Hull; ↵ Antoon Goderis; Qiuwei Yu Subject: Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington ↵ workshop Bertram This is a coincidence -- we also discussed this in the myGrid planning meeting today as we are concerned that we do not have the resources to set aside for the challenge and produce the Taverna 1.5 release, esp. as Jun, Duncan and Antoon are writing up their PhDs right now and Sky isn't up to speed as he has just started. So we are seriously considering withdrawing from the second challenge. Carole > Hi Simon and all: > > Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a ↵ "multi-phase" one, > with the first phase ending in January. > > 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). > > I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually ↵ plans > to participate in the second challenge: > (a) with the current schedule > (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. > > For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd > challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) > > 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.. > > thoughts? > > 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. > > Bertram > > >>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> > SM> > SM> Hello again, > SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that we > SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and issues > SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such ↵ queries, > SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of ↵ data > SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. ↵ They > SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, but > SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. > SM> > SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries > SM> > SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add ↵ them! > SM> > SM> Thanks, > SM> Simon > SM> > SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we ↵ captured > SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, physicists, > SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our ↵ project > SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper > SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in ↵ Journal > SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website > SM> www.pasoa.org > >
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
From: dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu (David Holland)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:13:14 -0500 (EST)
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu • This Message → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from golbeck AT cs.umd.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from shirleyc AT cis.upenn.edu → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from jmgomez AT isoco.com |
> I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually ↵ plans > to participate in the second challenge: > (a) with the current schedule > (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. We would like to, but our development schedule may cause us to miss the January deadline. (The old prototype we ran the first challenge on has reached the end of its useful lifetime, and the new one may not be ready in time.) Pushing the January deadline back even a couple weeks would make it much more likely that we could participate. -- - David A. Holland / dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu
From: "Yogesh L. Simmhan" <ysimmhan AT cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:31:16 -0500
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu • This Message |
| | I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who actually ↵ plans | to participate in the second challenge: | (a) with the current schedule | (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. | We will be able to participate in the second challenge on the current schedule. Best regards, --Yogesh
From: Jennifer Golbeck <golbeck AT cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:17:14 -0500 (EST)
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu • This Message |
> > I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who ↵ actually plans > > to participate in the second challenge: > > (a) with the current schedule > > (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. > My group will participate either way, though a bit later would be easier. jen
From: Shirley Cohen <shirleyc AT cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:31:14 -0500
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu • This Message |
I will be tied up until June 29th and would prefer that the schedule start a bit later (i.e. after June 29th). Thanks, Shirley On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Jennifer Golbeck wrote: > >>> I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who ↵ actually plans >>> to participate in the second challenge: >>> (a) with the current schedule >>> (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. >> > > My group will participate either way, though a bit later would be > easier. > > jen
From: "Bertram Ludaescher" <ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:52:32 -0800
| Threading: | ↑ RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu • This Message |
Hi Luc and all: If as you say the first phase of PC-2 indeed only requires publishing the actual data from PC-1, then it might be doable on the current schedule. But I'll have to check with the others first (I've heard some concerns from the re. the schedule already) If we just dump our internal RWS and COMAD provenance records on the wiki site, however, it might not be useful for others (no effort was spent on making the format interoperable, e.g. as XML -- so it might be hard for PC-2 folks to do sth with it). On the other hand, I must say it would be a nice *closure of PC-1* to require that the actual provenance data, even if internal, be made available. It would also be an added value to the submissions to the special issue :) cheers Bertram >>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:19:48 +0000 >>> Luc Moreau <L.Moreau AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: LM> LM> We've been working on the basis of what we agreed at the last workshop. LM> 1. We were aiming for a workshop in June. LM> 2. The first phase, consisting of exporting data from the first ↵ challenge, LM> - did not require much work (because we did the work at the first LM> challenge) LM> - is a prerequisite to do any thinking in terms of one-to-one ↵ integration LM> LM> I agree with Ewa that it would be nice to read the papers of the first LM> challenge. LM> They will become available at the same time as we propose the provenance LM> traces to be made available. It is all complementary. LM> LM> Luc LM> LM> LM> LM> Professor Luc Moreau LM> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 LM> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 LM> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau AT ecs.soton.ac.uk LM> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm LM> LM> LM> LM> Ewa Deelman wrote: >> Hi, >> I agree that it would be beneficial to digest the first challenge. I >> would for example like to have the time to read the papers that ↵ describe >> the various approaches. Also, with many proposal deadlines in the US ↵ in >> January and early February it would be very hard if not impossible to >> participate in this upcoming challenge. >> Thanks, >> -Ewa >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info >> [mailto:owner-provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info] On Behalf Of Carole ↵ Goble >> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:30 AM >> To: provenance-challenge AT ipaw.info >> Cc: June Finch; daniele turi; Jun Zhao; rds AT cs.man.ac.uk; Duncan ↵ Hull; >> Antoon Goderis; Qiuwei Yu >> Subject: Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from >> Washington workshop >> >> Bertram >> >> This is a coincidence -- we also discussed this in the myGrid planning ↵ >> meeting today as we are concerned that we do not have the resources to ↵ >> set aside for the challenge and produce the Taverna 1.5 release, esp. ↵ as >> >> Jun, Duncan and Antoon are writing up their PhDs right now and Sky ↵ isn't >> >> up to speed as he has just started. >> >> So we are seriously considering withdrawing from the second challenge. >> >> Carole >> >> >>> Hi Simon and all: >>> >>> Re. the 2nd Prov. Challenge: I understand this is a ↵ "multi-phase" one, >>> with the first phase ending in January. >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see who ↵ actually plans >>> to participate in the second challenge: >>> (a) with the current schedule >>> (b) with a schedule starting a bit later. >>> >>> For example, I would have liked to give some feedback on the 2nd >>> challenge but I guess I'm a bit late (may still do so) >>> >>> 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.. >>> >>> thoughts? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Bertram >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:52:32 +0000 >>>>>> "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> ↵ wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> SM> SM> Hello again, SM> During the Washington provenance workshop, it was suggested that >>> >> we >> SM> develop new provenance queries to examine the edge cases and >>> >> issues >> SM> not touched by the first challenge. We discussed many such >>> >> queries, >> SM> related to long-term use of provenance, accidental corruption of >>> >> data >> SM> etc. These have now been written up and uploaded to the TWiki. >>> >> They >> SM> aren't intended to be anything to do with the second challenge, >>> >> but >> SM> are hopefully a useful resource in themselves. SM> SM> http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/ProvenanceQueries SM> SM> If you remember any others I've forgotten, please feel free to add >>> >> them! >> SM> SM> Thanks, SM> Simon SM> SM> P.S. If you want even more provenance-related questions: we >>> >> captured >> SM> many use cases in interviews with biologists, chemists, >>> >> physicists, >> SM> computer scientists and social scientists at the start of our >>> >> project >> SM> in 2004. Many of these are specified in a paper SM> (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13242, soon to be published in >>> >> Journal >> SM> of Grid Computing) and even more are available on the website SM> www.pasoa.org >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jose_Manuel_G=F3mez?= <jmgomez AT isoco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:55:27 +0100
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from dholland AT eecs.harvard.edu • This Message |
In our case it is especially harder as we were not in the first edition
of the challenge. We will try to match whatever terms, but later we
would be able to participate with more mature work.
Thanks,
Jose
Shirley Cohen wrote:
> I will be tied up until June 29th and would prefer that the schedule
> start a bit later (i.e. after June 29th).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shirley
>
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Jennifer Golbeck wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I'd like to suggest to have a "roll call" and see ↵
who actually plans
>>>> to participate in the second challenge:
>>>> (a) with the current schedule
>>>> (b) with a schedule starting a bit later.
>>>
>>
>> My group will participate either way, though a bit later would be ↵
easier.
>>
>> jen
>
>
>
--
Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez
Research Manager
jmgomez AT isoco.com
#T +34913349778
#M +34609077103
Pedro de Valdivia, 10
28006 Madrid, Spain
iSOCO
intelligent software for the networked economy
www.isoco.com
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el
destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización,
divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la
legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
destrucción.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this
communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been
received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete
it.
From: "Bertram Ludaescher" <ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:59:00 -0800
| Threading: | ↑ RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu • This Message |
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:52:32 -0800 >>> "Bertram Ludaescher" <ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu> ↵ wrote: ... BL> If we just dump our internal RWS and COMAD provenance records on the BL> wiki site, however, it might not be useful for others (no effort was BL> spent on making the format interoperable, e.g. as XML -- so it might BL> be hard for PC-2 folks to do sth with it). I was just reminded about the fact that COMAD provenance info is available in XML. So we can get that part immediately. However, COMAD uses a different model of computation (MoC) than other approaches, so the fact that XML is used probably won't help as much as one might hope. Also COMAD by default embeds provenance info in the data stream. Externalization should be possible though. RWS on the other hand is using a MoC (dataflow process network) that is a bit closer to the standard DAG model (in fact generalizing it) and thus might be easier to integrate. Generating XML from the current internal syntax (Prolog) should be easy. Bertram
From: "Simon Miles" <sm AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:56:01 +0000
| Threading: | ↑ RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu • This Message |
Hello, We have discussed the recent comments on timing of the challenge. The final deadline (June) would be hard to push back because we already have confirmation that the workshop will be held at HPDC (yet to be told whether it will be on the 25th or 26th). However, it seems that the first phase deadline is the one people have most difficulty with, so we propose moving it back to 20th February. The timetable would then be: - First phase deadline: 2007 February 20 - Final deadline/workshop: 2007 June 25/26 Would this be better / adequate? Thanks, Simon, Juliana, Luc On 13/12/06, Bertram Ludaescher <ludaesch AT ucdavis.edu> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:52:32 -0800 > >>> "Bertram Ludaescher" <ludaesch AT ↵ ucdavis.edu> wrote: > ... > BL> If we just dump our internal RWS and COMAD provenance records on ↵ the > BL> wiki site, however, it might not be useful for others (no effort ↵ was > BL> spent on making the format interoperable, e.g. as XML -- so it ↵ might > BL> be hard for PC-2 folks to do sth with it). > > I was just reminded about the fact that COMAD provenance info is > available in XML. So we can get that part immediately. > However, COMAD uses a different model of computation (MoC) than other > approaches, so the fact that XML is used probably won't help as much > as one might hope. Also COMAD by default embeds provenance info in the > data stream. Externalization should be possible though. > > RWS on the other hand is using a MoC (dataflow process network) that > is a bit closer to the standard DAG model (in fact generalizing it) > and thus might be easier to integrate. Generating XML from the > current internal syntax (Prolog) should be easy. > > Bertram > >
From: Ben Clifford <benc AT hawaga.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:48:10 +0000 (GMT)
| Threading: | ↑ RE: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from deelman AT isi.edu • This Message → Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from sarahcb AT seas.upenn.edu |
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Simon Miles wrote: > However, it seems that the first phase deadline is the one people have > most difficulty with, so we propose moving it back to 20th February. > The timetable would then be: > - First phase deadline: 2007 February 20 > Would this be better / adequate? that's fine with me --
From: Sarah Cohen Boulakia <sarahcb AT seas.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:59:47 -0500
| Threading: | ↑ Re: [provenance-challenge] New provenance queries from Washington workshop from benc AT hawaga.org.uk • This Message |
> - First phase deadline: 2007 February 20 > - Final deadline/workshop: 2007 June 25/26 > > Would this be better / adequate? That should be fine for us too (UPenn). Sarah