Second Provenance Challenge Template | |||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 54 to 54 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- SimonMiles - 11 Dec 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Second Provenance Challenge Template | |||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 22 to 22 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
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 on one procedure with the input of another. Due to the workflow being split into three parts, this means that there are 'dangling' relationships at the start of parts 2 and 3, referring back to the output of the preceding procedures documented in the previous workflow part, e.g. in part 2, softmean takes inputs from reslice procedures documented in the part 1, so relationships exist in part 2 from the softmean inputs documented in part 2 to the reslice inputs in part 1.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
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:
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 54 to 54 | |||||||||||||||||||
| -- SimonMiles - 11 Dec 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Second Provenance Challenge Template | |||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 6 to 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participating Team | |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Differences from First Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
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). | ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
There were no changes from our solution to the first challenge. | ||||||||||||||||||
Provenance Data for Workflow Parts | |||||||||||||||||||
| Changed: | |||||||||||||||||||
| < < |
Give links here to your provenance data files for the workflow parts of the challenge: three parts for the original workflow and three parts for the modified workflow (as per provenance query 7). The data files could be attached to the results page. | ||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
The provenance for the three parts of the original workflow are here:
align_warp and reslice in part 1, softmean in part 2, slicer and convert in part 3). Relationship p-assertions link together the output on one procedure with the input of another. Due to the workflow being split into three parts, this means that there are 'dangling' relationships at the start of parts 2 and 3, referring back to the output of the preceding procedures documented in the previous workflow part, e.g. in part 2, softmean takes inputs from reslice procedures documented in the part 1, so relationships exist in part 2 from the softmean inputs documented in part 2 to the reslice inputs in part 1.
The provenance for the three parts of the modified workflow (as per provenance query 7) are here:
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 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 41 to 54 | |||||||||||||||||||
| -- SimonMiles - 11 Dec 2006 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Added: | |||||||||||||||||||
| > > |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
Second Provenance Challenge TemplateParticipating Team
Differences from First ChallengeNote 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 PartsGive links here to your provenance data files for the workflow parts of the challenge: three parts for the original workflow and three parts for the modified workflow (as per provenance query 7). The data files could be attached to the results page.Model Integration ResultsState here which combinations of teams' models you have managed to perform the provenance query overTranslation DetailsDescribe 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 extraneousBenchmarksDescribe your proposed benchmark queries, how the comparable quantities are determined, and the results of applying the benchmark to your own systemFurther CommentsProvide here further comments.ConclusionsProvide here your conclusions on the challenge, and issues that you like to see discussed at a face to face meeting. -- SimonMiles - 11 Dec 2006 | |||||||