Findable and Reusable Workflow DataProducts: A Genomic Workflow Case Study

Tracking #: 2257-3470

Authors: 
Alban Gaignard
Hala Skaf-Molli
Khalid Belhajjame

Responsible editor: 
Guest Editors Semantic E-Science 2018

Submission type: 
Full Paper
Abstract: 
While workflow systems have improved the repeatability of scientific experiments, the value of the processed (intermediate) data have been overlooked so far. In this paper, we argue that the intermediate data products of workflow executions should be seen as first-class objects that need to be curated and published. Not only will this be exploited to save time and resources needed when re-executing workflows, but more importantly, it will improve the reuse of data products by the same or peer scientists in the context of new hypotheses and experiments. To assist curator in annotating (intermediate) workflow data, we exploit in this work multiple sources of information, namely: i) the provenance information captured by the workflow system, and ii) domain annotations that are provided by tools registries, such as Bio.Tools. Furthermore, we show, on a concrete bioinformatics scenario, how summarising techniques can be used to reduce the machine-generated provenance information of such data products into concise human- and machine-readable annotations.
Full PDF Version: 
Tags: 
Reviewed

Decision/Status: 
Accept

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By Tomi Kauppinen submitted on 12/Aug/2019
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

This is a resubmission of the original paper (major revision). In my view authors addressed all the concerns raised by reviewers, and thus the paper is now acceptable.

Review #2
By Angelo Salatino submitted on 27/Aug/2019
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing.

I read the rebuttal and checked the actions within the paper. The authors answered to all my doubts in a very exhaustive way. i am satisfied with the recently submitted version and therefore suggest its acceptance.

Review #3
By Monika Akbar submitted on 15/Sep/2019
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing.

The authors have addressed my earlier comments and updated the paper accordingly. I recommend the acceptance of the paper.