• Participant names: Qiuwei Yu, Katy Wolstencroft, Khalid Belhajjame, Carole Goble, Robert Steven, Daniele Turi (University of Manchester)

• Part 1: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part1New

• Part 2: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part2New

• Part 3: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part3New

• Part 2: softmean and ReslicedImages and ReslicedHeaders .

• Part 3 slicer, convert and AtlasImage and AtlasHeader .

• Part 1: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part1_New

• Part 2: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part2_New

• Part 3: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part3_New

• Participant names: Qiuwei Yu, Carole Goble, Robert Steven, Daniele Turi (University of Manchester)

Participating Team

• Short team name: myGrid
• Participant names: Qiuwei Yu, Carole Goble, Daniele Turi (University of Manchester)
• Project URL: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/
• Reference to first challenge results: myGrid team First Provenance Challenge Results Page

Differences from First Challenge

Note here any changes in your provenance representation, workflow enactment or system since the first challenge. Alternatively, if you did not participate in the first challenge, please provide the same details as were required for those who did (particularly workflow representation and provenance representation).

Provenance Data for Workflow Parts

Our metadata and provenance is managed through a NG4J named graph, and we have used TriQL queries to complete the first provenance challenge. In order to meet the requirement of phrase one, our provenance data were collected in the XML notation and are provided as RDF (Resource Description Framework) files. Figure1 graphically presents the schema (also called the data model). This schema also shared under http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~yuq/SecondChallenge/ProvenanceOntology/.

• • 
  • Figure 1 Provenance ontology abstract view in Protégé

The provenance for the three parts of the primary workflow (which are also recorded with required annotations for query 8 and query 9) are as follows:

• Part 1: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part1.rdf

• Part 2: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part2.rdf

• Part 3: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Part3.rdf

In order to produce the complete provenance for part2 and part3, repeated processors which include reslice and softmean were used. Based on our provenance schema and original workflow designed in Taveran workbench (see our first challenge results page), for each part of the exported provenance, the output data of the previous part is the input of the next part. Some of the specially designed ‘beanshell’ processors also contain their own output data. Since the original workflow has been split into three parts, these 'bridging' processors must be repeated at the start of parts 2 and 3 which take the output data from in the previous workflow part. For this reason, each part of the provenance RDF contains:

• Part 1: align_warp and reslice.

• • 
  • Figure 2 - Part 1 of the Primary Workflow

• Part 2: softmean and reslice .

• • 
  • Figure 3 - Part 2 of the Primary Workflow

• • reslice (as processors in the part 1) are re-used as data stores to pass values of ReslicedImage and ReslicedHeader into softmean in part 2, reslice can also be viewed as the softmean inputs in part 2.

• Part 3 slicer, convert and softmean .

• • 
  • Figure 4 - Part 3 of the Primary Workflow

• • The softmean processor in part 2 exists to carry part of the slicer inputs to part 3. In our original workflow softmean is responsible for holding the values of AtlasImage and AtlasHeader as data stores which need to be passed into slicer in part 3.

The provenance for the three parts of the secondary workflow (which has been modified as per for query 7) are as follows:

• Part 1: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part1.rdf

• Part 2: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part2.rdf

• Part 3: SecondChallenge_myGrid_Q7_Part3.rdf

Compared with the provenance of the primary workflow runs, these documents contain the same processors except each _Italic_convert processor has been replaced with two new processors, _Italic_pgmtoppm and then _Italic_pnmtojpeg, in order to convert from PGM to JPEG in workflow Part 3. The difference is documented in the adaptation specified by Query 7 and on our first challenge results page which associated with Provenance Query 7.

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.

-- QiuweiYu - 19 Feb 2007

Second Provenance Challenge Page