4.7 Article

Common motifs in scientific workflows: An empirical analysis

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2013.09.018

Keywords

Scientific workflows; Workflow motif; Workflow pattern; Taverna; Wings; Galaxy; Vistrails

Funding

  1. Wf4Ever European project [FP7-270192]
  2. US Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) [FA9550-11-1-0104]
  3. FPU grant (Formacion de Profesorado Universitario) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCINN)
  4. EPSRC [EP/G026238/1]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G026238/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/G026238/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Workflow technology continues to play an important role as a means for specifying and enacting computational experiments in modern science. Reusing and re-purposing workflows allow scientists to do new experiments faster, since the workflows capture useful expertise from others. As workflow libraries grow, scientists face the challenge of finding workflows appropriate for their task, understanding what each workflow does, and reusing relevant portions of a given workflow. We believe that workflows would be easier to understand and reuse if high-level views (abstractions) of their activities were available in workflow libraries. As a first step towards obtaining these abstractions, we report in this paper on the results of a manual analysis performed over a set of real-world scientific workflows from Taverna, Wings, Galaxy and Vistrails. Our analysis has resulted in a set of scientific workflow motifs that outline (i) the kinds of data-intensive activities that are observed in workflows (Data-Operation motifs), and (ii) the different manners in which activities are implemented within workflows (Workflow-Oriented motifs). These motifs are helpful to identify the functionality of the steps in a given workflow, to develop best practices for workflow design, and to develop approaches for automated generation of workflow abstractions. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available