Introduction to the Special Issue

Editorial, as submitted to CCPE

• challenge-editorial.pdf

The latest version of the matrix is available from http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=ppuXHhwRaMhIdY5dcUCHnRg.

• Comments from UPenn (Zoom). Here are the modifications we wish to make to our row in the system matrix:
  • 1.2: Since our run was simulated, the "Execution Environment for the challenge'' should be blank. Also, we didn't actually use Kepler. Our approach would be able to use any workflow system, provided a log file with what we call "minimal information'' (very basic description of the workflow execution). For example, a system like myGrid is able to provide this information, Kepler should be able to do the same shortly. Very probably, we could consider several other workflow systems.
  • 1.4: We would say "SQL augmented with transitive closure'' rather than "SQL + graph extensions"
  • 1.5: We are interested in both storing and querying so "S/R'' rather than "Q''.
  • 2.5: ZOOM needs unique ids, so replace with "Unique ids assigned to every provenance relevant object (i.e. data, steps, step-classes)''
  • 2.6 (granularity of tracked data): "I/O objects of any type (data items and collection)"
  • 2.7: Rather than ``boxes'', say "user views of composite steps''
  • As for the introduction, overall we liked it! Maybe the terms introduced in 1.5 (E/R/Q/S) could be more explicit. In 2.1 (causal graph) is not really clear what is expected. We have the feeling that this part of the table is difficult to read without knowing the approaches. Finally, maybe once every team will complete the table, it might be better to have keywords associated with 2.6 (e.g. data items, collections, bites, files...). -- SarahCohenBoulakia - 23 Oct 2006

-- LucMoreau - 16 Oct 2006

Current list of papers/abstracts: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm/challenge06.html