[Esip-preserve] Some Thoughts on ACCESS Presentations

[Ruth Duerr]

Hi Bruce,

I think having a set of common items presented, if we manage to get the ACCESS projects all to come, is a good one.  However, it isn't obvious to me that we know enough about the goals of each of the projects to know what an applicable set of topics would be.

Ruth

On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:54 AM, alicebarkstrom at verizon.net wrote:

> I think it would be helpful to request some
> common information from ACCESS presentations
> on Provenance.  For example
>  
> 1.  For what kind of data is the provenance being reported:
> images, vertical temperature or composition profiles,
> point in situ measurements, or something else?
>  
> 2.  How much data is being input - or, perhaps more
> usefully, how many files are being ingested?
>  
> 3.  How much data is being output - or, again, perhaps
> more usefully, how many entries are there in the
> results sets for a session?
>  
> 4.  How are the workflows put into the provenance
> tracker: graphical workflow session, automated
> generation (and if so how), text file, or some other
> means?
>  
> 5.  How are the processes in the workflow made
> understandable: "code" listings, reference to particular
> documentation in the tool, or some other means?
>  
> 6.  Can the workflow from a session be recorded and
> edited for later use?  Could they be converted to
> high-throughput use?
>  
> 7.  Are provenance sessions used as a stand-alone
> interactions with data, or are they used in some ordered
> fashion in fulfilling a larger role in a project, for example,
> as part of validation?
>  
> I think if we can agree on some common items to
> have presented in the January meeting, we will find
> it much easier to understand what these projects
> are doing and save everyone time later when we
> might need to write up a comparison of the end
> results.
>  
> Bruce B.