Provenance Challenge

Second Provenance Challenge Template

Participating Team

• Short team name: Open Provenance Architecture
• Participant names: Simon Miles, Luc Moreau (University of Southampton)
• Project URL: http://www.pasoa.org
• Reference to first challenge results (if participated): here

Differences from First Challenge

There were no changes from our solution to the first challenge.

Provenance Data for Workflow Parts

The provenance for the three parts of the original workflow are here:

• part1-1.xml: First part
• part1-2.xml: Second part
• part1-3.xml: Final part

Following our data model (see our first challenge results page), each part documents the interactions between a workflow enacter and the procedures involved in that part of the workflow (align_warp and reslice in part 1, softmean in part 2, slicer and convert in part 3). Relationship p-assertions link together the output of one procedure with the input of another. Due to the workflow being split into three parts, each of the three sets of documentation contain partial views, where either the sender or receiver of the data is excluded (i.e. for the messages sent from reslice, the sender's view is contained in the first part, while the receiver's view is contained in the second part; for the messages sent from softmean, the sender's view is contained in the second part, while the receiver's view is contained in the third part).

The provenance for the three parts of the modified workflow (as per provenance query 7) are here:

• part2-1.xml: First part
• part2-2.xml: Second part
• part2-3.xml: Final part

These document the same process except with convert replaced by three new procedures: pgmtogif, pgmtojpeg and jpegtogif (the first calls the latter two in order to convert from PGM to GIF in two stages). The difference is documented on our first challenge results page.

Model Integration Results

State here which combinations of teams' models you have managed to perform the provenance query over

Translation Details

Describe details regarding how data models were translated (or otherwise used to answer the query following the team's approach), any data which was absent from a downloaded model, and whether this affected the possibility of translation or successful provenance query, and any data which was excluded in translation from a downloaded model because it was extraneous

Benchmarks

Describe your proposed benchmark queries, how the comparable quantities are determined, and the results of applying the benchmark to your own system

Further Comments

Provide here further comments.

Conclusions

Provide here your conclusions on the challenge, and issues that you like to see discussed at a face to face meeting.

-- SimonMiles - 11 Dec 2006
to top