Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

...

This service takes an Research Object as the input to evaluate the level of integrity and authenticity of the RO(from now an on also  so called quality of the RO). It is to be implemented in a Restful style so that it can be easily used by other Wf4Ever components. The service is currently designed to provide a quality measurement of an RO, however, it can also be used to evaluate information quality of any information that can be encoded in the RO model. Furthermore it also can be used to evaluate the quality of a workflow using its previously stored provenance information. Therefore, this service will not only enhance the quality awareness of ROs for Wf4Ever users but also provide a generic service that can be adapted to any information on the Web. This will fill in the gap in the current (Semantic) Web research, i.e. a lack of quality awareness of the data on the Web.

...

 

Positive

Negative

Internal Factors

Strengths
?   •    Trustworthiness in Research Object.
?   •    Include expertise from real domain experts in designing evaluation algorithms
?   •    Background in provenance, information quality, and security related research
?    •    Extension of vocabularies to describe the provenance traces and allow the measurement of workflows quality.
?    •    Iimplementation of a provenance quality tracking.

Weaknesses
?   •    Lack of a large amount real research data and research objects for evaluation
?   •    Not clear users' requirements
?   •    Need to build ad-hoc provenance information collection infrastructure (This is not really true. See: http://glocal.isoco.net/eps. For Workflow provenance, we also have Taverna's logging system)
?    •    Difficulties for the definition of the quality measurements criteria due to its intrinsic ambiguity.

External Factors

Opportunities
?   •    First actual implementation evaluating the quality of information shared on the Web
?   •    Refine understanding about trustworthiness of data on the Web
?   •    Information quality is the next most important topic in the ever fast growing Semantic Web (Web of Data)
?   •    Contribute to upcoming standardization effort in the W3C Provenance Working Group
?   •    Evaluating trustworthiness of data is a highly desired functionality in the context of the Semantic Web.

Threats
?   •    Information available in the wild may not be expressible by the Research Object model
?   •    Technology may not be mature enough.
?    •    Difficulties to obtain provenance data in other domains out of the scope of the two scenarios belonging to  the WF4Ever project.

 

 

 

RO Model

This result will provide a conceptual model for workflow-centric Resarch Objects, encapsulating process specifications along with metadata, in order to provide a preservable, shareable self-contained unit. In order to ensure focus, the project will focus on Research Objects that encapsulate workflows. The current approach draws on existing vocabularies in order to

...

 

Positive

Negative

Internal Factors

Strengths
? Team with lengthy experience in Semantic Web technology, provenance, support for workflows, ontology and vocabulary development.
? Domain experts/stakeholders within project
? Existing sister projects providing experience and results
? Background activities providing a starting point

Weaknesses
? Danger of over-elaboration
? Danger of over-generalisation/over-scoping
? Narrow focus on two domains (under-scoping)
? Emphasis on "interesting CS questions" to the detriment of low-hanging fruit/easy wins

External Factors

Opportunities
? Engagement /dissemination with other projects through external contacts
? RO Modelling as exemplars of emerging standards (e.g. AO or OAC)
? Models are needed for new publication paradigms, so potentially high impact
? Potential contributions to standardisation activity

Threats
? Other models developed and adopted
? Developed models not generally applicable
? Developed models bad fit with future standards
? Annotation vocabularies change

...

 

Positive

Negative

Internal factors

Strengths

  • Experience in Workflow and Web Service development.
  • Possibility to count on real domain experts to evaluate Workflow results.
  • Background in Semantic Web technologies
  • Access to novel GWAS data
  • A complex case that can benefit from preserving experimental methods and results.

Weaknesses

  • Crucial web service componentes for the workflows to run still need to be developed
  • Internal novel GWAS data is not yet replciated and can only be used for publication in a later stage in the project.
  • Wf4Ever technology under development

External factors

Opportunities

  • First experiments to interpreting novel GWAS results while preserving the process in a workflow supported by Wf4Ever technology may facilitate dissemination
  • Contributing to upcoming standards for the sharing and preservation of workflows, initially by publishing the workflows in the current version of myExperiment and later suppotred by Wf4Ever technologies
  • Possibility to evaluate wf4ever results from within a life science domain.

Threats

  • Wf4Ever technology may not mature quickly enough to sufficiently demonstrate its impact on life science practice. This is a lesser threat for the bioinformatics community.

 

...

 

Positive

Negative

Internal factors

Strengths

  • Partners with strong background in the design and implementation of digital library systems
  • Involvement of domain users during the design of RODL
  • Leverages existing production systems, most of them developed by consortium partners
  • Adoption of open standards and protocols
  • First digital library system specialized for scientific workflows, and their related objects, aggregated in complex digitial objects (Research Objects) 
  • Delivered as open software

Weaknesses

  • Unstable and continuously evolving underlying models
  • Low level of maturity compared to some other conventional digital libraries
  • Some user valued functionality may depend on external services (a direct consequence of a distributed architecture of the Wf4Ever toolkit), and thus on the quality of those services

External factors

Opportunities 

  • Adoption of RODL for preservation of scientific workflows in many domains
  • Instantiation of RODL by 3rd party technology providers
  • Exploitation of RODL components to support other type of complex digital objects
  • Integration of RODL with other systems/components outside Wf4Ever scope
  • Provide an exemplar application for bringing together the digital libraries community and other scientific communities

Threats

  • RODL does not fulfill users expectations
  • Successful RODL may turn to be very domain-specific which will hinder its adoption by other domains outside of Wf4Ever
  • External institutions/projects offer products with equivalent functionality, before RODL

...