• Slides on the knowledge-oriented provenance environment, used during the Second Provenance Challenge workshop (June 26th 2007, Monterey Ca): KOPE-2ndProvenanceChallenge.ppt

• KOPE-2ndProvenanceChallenge.ppt: Slides on the knowledge-oriented provenance environment used during the presentation at the Second Provenance Challenge (June 26th 2007, Monterey Ca)

• Participant names: Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez, Francisco Javier García (iSOCO), Rafael González-Cabero (UPM), Chris Van Aart (Y'All)

• Stage1-2.xml: Part 1: align_warp and reslice (stages 1 and 2)

• Stage3.xml: Part 2: softmean (stage 3)

• Stage4-5.xml: Part 3: slicer and convert (stages 4 and 5)

• ChallengeProvenanceLog.xml: Semantically-enhanced provenance log for the population-based brain atlas workflow

• AlgorithmResult.xml: XML structure representing the PSM hierarchy and their enriched roles resulting from the provenance interpretation process using PSM.

OntoGrid Approach Overview

There are two different approaches towards using PSM for knowledge provenance. On the one hand, domain-independent PSM describing different reasoning processes, like those identified in CommonKADS, e.g. validation, monitoring, or diagnostics, can be used to come up with a description, in terms of the particular domain of application, of the reasoning process which has taken place during execution. On the other hand, domain-level (instead of reasoning-level), process-oriented PSM can be used to specify the knowledge flow of distributed applications and validate their execution by means of interpreting their provenance logs against such specification.

In the case of the Challenge, we have followed the first approach in its simpler flavour: we use a single, domain-independent PSM category which describes a Catalogation reasoning process to interpret, in terms of the population-based brain atlases domain, the execution of the Challenge workflow as recorded by preexisting process documentation infrastructure.

1. The OntoGrid PSM meta-model (psmontology.rdfs). It describes the basic entities of a PSM, and how they are related with each other. These key components can be found in the ProblemSolvingMethods section and are represented as follows:

1. The catalogation PSM library (psmontologyModel.rdf) which provides a hierarchy of methods describing strategies to solve catalogation tasks. This PSM library is an instance of the OntoGrid PSM meta-model.
2. The Brain Atlas ontology (BrainAtlasDomainOntology.rdfs, BrainAtlasDomainOntology.rdf). It describes the domain to be interpreted by the PSM library.

• ChallengeLog.xml: Semantically-enhanced provenance log for the population-based brain atlas workflow

1. The first stage consists of documenting process execution using pre-existing provenance infrastructure like e.g. BPM. This provenance information is compliant with the Univesity of Southampton Provenance datamodel.

1. The second stage, i.e. proper interpretation of the previously produced process documentation, requires a PSM library to interpret such documentation. For the Challenge, we have developed a domain-independent PSM library, which provides a hierarchy of methods describing strategies to solve catalogation tasks, of which the creation of population-based brain atlas can be seen as an instance. This catalogation PSM library is an instance of the RDF PSM meta-model developed in OntoGrid.

• psmontology.rdfs: PSM meta-model

• psmCatalogation.rdf: Catalogation PSM library

At the top level, the brain atlas creation process is described as an overall catalogation task whose input is an "initial observation" and its output is an "information representation". After applying the prime catalogue method, a refinement of such task is produced, as shown in next figure:

The original process documentation, according to the Southampton datamodel, for the three parts of the original workflow can be found at http://www.insurancegrid.org/bpm/. Select "Provenance Challenge13:48:13,496 ,1502" from the list of available Virtual Organizations , then select option "sniffer" on the left, and, in the "Actors" tab select the subprocess of the brain atlas workflow in which you are interested. Clicking on "Filter" will return the process documentation relevant to those actors. A file containing this provenance information can be retrieved by selecting "p-struct export".

Links to the semantically enhanced logs used for provenance interpretation using PSM will be provided in short.

Model Integration Results

Links to the semantically enhanced logs used for provenance interpretation using PSM will be provided in short.

The second stage, i.e. proper interpretation of the previously produced process documentation, requires a PSM library to interpret such documentation. For the Challenge, we have developed a generic PSM library which provides a hierarchy methods to solve an abstract catalogation task like the one occuring in the Challenge workflow. This catalogation PSM library is an instance of the RDF PSM meta-model developed in OntoGrid.

• psmontology.rdfs: PSM meta-model

• psmCatalogation.rdf: Catalogation PSM library

• Participant names: Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez, Francisco Javier García (iSOCO), Chris Van Aart (Y'All)

• *Graphically inspect and explain individual node reasoning
• *Help to understand communication and collaboration between nodes, such as negotiation and coordination, and compare this with the original design.
• *Graphically inspect the overall system reasoning, such as problem solving.
• *Inspect overall system behaviour on the basis of a Knowledge Base.

Our approach uses BPM to document the execution of a given process. BPM provides a series of inspection methods which allow querying such process documentation and retrieve information about provenance. More information about BPM can be obtained in http://www.insurancegrid.org/bpm/ (click on "About").

Provenance Data for Workflow Parts

The process documentation for the three parts of the original workflow can be found at http://www.insurancegrid.org/bpm/. Select "Provenance Challenge13:48:13,496 ,1502" from the list of available Virtual Organizations , then select option "sniffer" on the left, and, in the "Actors" tab select the subprocess of the brain atlas workflow in which you are interested. Clicking on "Filter" will return the process documentation relevant to those actors.

Second Provenance Challenge Template

Participating Team

• Short team name: OntoGrid
• Participant names: Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez (iSOCO), Chris Van Aart (Y'All)
• Project URL: http://www.ontogrid.net

Differences from First Challenge

OntoGrid did not participate in the First Provenance Challenge.

Provenance Data for Workflow Parts

The process documentation for the three parts of the original workflow can be found at http://www.insurancegrid.org/bpm/. Select "Provenance Challenge13:48:13,496 ,1502" from the list of available Virtual Organizations , then select option "sniffer" on the left, and, in the "Actors" tab select the subprocess of the brain atlas workflow in which you are interested. Clicking on "Filter" will return the process documentation relevant to those actors.

A file containing this provenance information can be retrieved both in a format compliant with the EU-Provenance model ("p-struct export") or in RDF ("RDF export"). For information on the first option, see http://twiki.ipaw.info/bin/view/Challenge/Southampton2. The RDF export follows the schema contained in .

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

-- JoseManuel - 19 Feb 2007