Southampton

1. Southampton PASOA and EU Provenance Simon Miles, Luc Moreau, Paul Groth, Sheng Jiang, Steve Munroe, Thibaut Assandri

2. Implementation • Implementation of workflow as a set of interacting Java classes: one per workflow activity and one ‘enactor’ • Each service records documentation to a Web Service provenance store • Data follows our XML data model, the p-structure • Provenance as the answer to a query over process documentation • Combination of provenance queries (scoped recursion) and XQueries to answer challenge

3. P-Assertions

4. Process Enactor Interaction P-Assertion Relationship P-Assertion AlignWarp Reslice Softmean Actor State P-Assertion

5. Interesting Features • Relationships: Workflow enactments not identified themselves, but relationships between data recorded instead • Provenance Queries: Provenance found by recursively following these relations and stopping where some condition is met (e.g. reached to the softmean actor) • Multiple Views: Each actor records its own view of the same flow of data

6. Interesting Features • Intensionally Defined Data Items: Rather than manage new unique identifiers for every data item, ask for provenance of something by giving its defining characteristics: event that it was involved in, actors involved in the event, content etc. • Documentation Style: Not documenting data verbatim, but replacing it with equivalent data and recording the transformation that took place to help queriers (used for querying image headers) • Process Composition: Possible to express and scope queries on composition of steps by modelling one actor’s internal process in the same way as the high-level workflow