Abstract
Scientific workflow management systems such as Galaxy, Taverna and Workspace, have been developed to automate scientific workflow management and are increasingly being used to accelerate the specification, execution, visualization, and monitoring of data-intensive tasks. For example, the popular bioinformatics platform Galaxy is installed on over 168 servers around the world and the social networking space myExperiment shares almost 4,000 Galaxy scientific workflows among its 10,665 members. Most of these systems offer graphical interfaces for composing workflows. However, while graphical languages are considered easier to use, graphical workflow models are more difficult to comprehend and maintain as they become larger and more complex. Text-based languages are considered harder to use but have the potential to provide a clean and concise expression of workflow even for large and complex workflows. A recent study showed that some scientists prefer script/text-based environments to perform complex scientific analysis with workflows. Unfortunately, such environments are unable to meet the needs of scientists who prefer graphical workflows. In order to address the needs of both types of scientists and at the same time to have script-based workflow models because of their underlying benefits, we propose a visually guided workflow modeling framework that combines interactive graphical user interface elements in an integrated development environment with the power of a domain-specific language to compose independently developed and loosely coupled services into workflows. Our domain-specific language provides scientists with a clean, concise, and abstract view of workflow to better support workflow modeling. As a proof of concept, we developed VizSciFlow, a generalized scientific workflow management system that can be customized for use in a variety of scientific domains. As a first use case, we configured and customized VizSciFlow for the bioinformatics domain. We conducted three user studies to assess its usability, expressiveness, efficiency, and flexibility. Results are promising, and in particular, our user studies show that VizSciFlow is more desirable for users to use than either Python or Galaxy for solving complex scientific problems.
- Enis Afgan, Dannon Baker, Marius Van den Beek, Daniel Blankenberg, Dave Bouvier, Martin vC ech, John Chilton, Dave Clements, Nate Coraor, Carl Eberhard, et al. 2016. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic acids research, Vol. 44, W1 (2016), W3--W10.Google Scholar
- Ilkay Altintas. 2011. Distributed Workflow-driven Analysis of Large-scale Biological Data Using Biokepler. In Proceedings of the 2Nd International Workshop on Petascal Data Analytics: Challenges and Opportunities (Seattle, Washington, USA) (PDAC '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--42. https://doi.org/10.1145/2110205.2110215Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ilkay Altintas, Chad Berkley, Efrat Jaeger, Matthew Jones, Bertram Ludascher, and Steve Mock. 2004. Kepler: An Extensible System for Design and Execution of Scientific Workflows. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM '04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 423--. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSDBM.2004.44Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- A. Alves, A. Arkin, S. Askary, C. Barreto, B. Bloch, Francisco Curbera, M. Ford, Y. Goland, A. Guzar, Neelakantan Kartha, C. Liu, and Rania Khalaf. 2007. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (OASIS Standard). OASIS Standard, Vol. 11 (01 2007).Google Scholar
- Peter Amstutz, Nebojsa Tijanic, Stian Soiland-Reyes, John Kern, Luka Stojanovic, Tim Pierce, John Chilton, Maxim Mikheev, Samuel Lampa, Hervé Ménager, Scott Frazer, Venkat S. Malladi, and Michael R. Crusoe. 2015. Beyond Galaxy: portable workflows and tool definitions with the CWL. https://cesgo.genouest.org/resources/129Google Scholar
- Simon Andrews et al. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data.Google Scholar
- Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, Vol. 4, 3 (2009), 114--123.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ankica Barivs ic, Vasco Amaral, Miguel Goul ao, and Bruno Barroca. 2014. Evaluating the usability of domain-specific languages. In Software Design and Development: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, 2120--2141.Google Scholar
- Ankica Barivsić, Pedro Monteiro, Vasco Amaral, Miguel Goul ao, and Miguel Monteiro. 2012. Patterns for Evaluating Usability of Domain-Specific Languages. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (Tucson, Arizona) (PLoP '12). The Hillside Group, USA, Article 14, 34 pages.Google Scholar
- Adam Barker and Jano Van Hemert. 2007. Scientific workflow: a survey and research directions. In International Conference on Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York, NY, 746--753.Google Scholar
- Jon Bentley. 1986. Programming pearls: little languages. Commun. ACM, Vol. 29, 8 (1986), 711--721.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nigel Bevan, Carol Barnum, Gilbert Cockton, Jakob Nielsen, Jared Spool, and Dennis Wixon. 2003. The magic number 5: is it enough for web testing?. In CHI'03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 698--699.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alan F Blackwell. 1996. Metacognitive theories of visual programming: what do we think we are doing?. In Visual Languages, 1996. Proceedings., IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 240--246.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shawn Bowers and Bertram Lud"ascher. 2005. Actor-oriented design of scientific workflows. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer, New York, NY, 369--384.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Brooke. 2013. SUS: a retrospective. Journal of usability studies, Vol. 8, 2 (2013), 29--40.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, Vol. 189, 194 (1996), 4--7.Google Scholar
- Steven P Callahan, Juliana Freire, Emanuele Santos, Carlos E Scheidegger, Cláudio T Silva, and Huy T Vo. 2006. VisTrails: visualization meets data management. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 745--747.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J Gregory Caporaso, Justin Kuczynski, Jesse Stombaugh, Kyle Bittinger, Frederic D Bushman, Elizabeth K Costello, Noah Fierer, Antonio Gonzalez Pena, Julia K Goodrich, Jeffrey I Gordon, et al. 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature methods, Vol. 7, 5 (2010), 335.Google Scholar
- Debasish Chakraborti, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy, and Kevin Schneider. 2018. Optimized Storing of Workflow Outputs through Mining Association Rules. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). 508--515.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Debasish Chakroborti, Banani Roy, Amit Kumar Mondal, Golam Mostaeen, Ralph Deters, Chanchal K. Roy, and Schneider Kevin A. 2020. A Data Management Scheme for Micro-Level Modular Computation-intensive Programs in Big Data Platforms. In In: Alhajj R., Moshirpour M.,and Far B. (eds), Data Management and Analysis: Case Studies in Education, Healthcare and Beyond, Studies in Big Data, Vol. 65. 1--20.Google Scholar
- Jinjun Chen and Wil van der Aalst. 2007. On scientific workflows. IEEE Computer Society's Technical Committee for Scalable Computing, Vol. 9 (2007).Google Scholar
- Michele Chinosi and Alberto Trombetta. 2012. BPMN: An introduction to the standard. Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 34, 1 (2012), 124--134.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David Churches, Gabor Gombas, Andrew Harrison, Jason Maassen, Craig Robinson, Matthew Shields, Ian Taylor, and Ian Wang. 2006. Programming Scientific and Distributed Workflow with Triana Services: Research Articles. Concurr. Comput. : Pract. Exper., Vol. 18, 10 (Aug. 2006), 1021--1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.v18:10Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Paul Cleary, Matt Bolger, Lachlan Hetherton, Chris Rucinski, David Thomas, and Damien Watkins. 2014. Workspace: A Platform for Delivering Scientific Applications. Proceedings eResearch (2014), 4.Google Scholar
- Peter JA Cock, Tiago Antao, Jeffrey T Chang, Brad A Chapman, Cymon J Cox, Andrew Dalke, Iddo Friedberg, Thomas Hamelryck, Frank Kauff, Bartek Wilczynski, et al. 2009. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics, Vol. 25, 11 (2009), 1422--1423.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Steve Cook, Gareth Jones, Stuart Kent, and Alan Cameron Wills. 2007. Domain-specific development with visual studio dsl tools .Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Fredy Cuenca, Jan Van den Bergh, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. 2014. A domain-specific textual language for rapid prototyping of multimodal interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97--106.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. 2008. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun. ACM, Vol. 51, 1 (2008), 107--113.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ewa Deelman, Karan Vahi, Gideon Juve, Mats Rynge, Scott Callaghan, Philip J Maechling, Rajiv Mayani, Weiwei Chen, Rafael Ferreira Da Silva, Miron Livny, et al. 2015. Pegasus, a workflow management system for science automation. Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 46 (2015), 17--35.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Paolo Di Tommaso, Maria Chatzou, Evan W Floden, Pablo Prieto Barja, Emilio Palumbo, and Cedric Notredame. 2017. Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nature biotechnology, Vol. 35, 4 (2017), 316--319.Google Scholar
- Marlon Dumas and Arthur ter Hofstede. 2001. UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language .Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 76--90. https://doi.org/10.1007/3--540--45441--1_7Google Scholar
- elephantlaboratories. 2019. Does anyone use CWL? Does it actually help you get work done? https://www.reddit.com/r/bioinformatics/comments/7gxsk0/does_anyone_use_cwl_does_it_actually_help_you_get/, visited 2019-07-08.Google Scholar
- Moritz Eysholdt and Heiko Behrens. 2010. Xtext: implement your language faster than the quick and dirty way. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications companion. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 307--309.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rayhan Ferdous, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy, and Kevin Schneider. 2020. Workflow Provenance for Big Data: From Modelling to Reporting. In Alhajj R., Moshirpour M.,and Far B. (eds), Data Management and Analysis: Case Studies in Education, Healthcare and Beyond, Studies in Big Data, Vol. 65. 1--18.Google Scholar
- Peter Forbrig, Anke Dittmar, and Mathias Kühn. 2018. A Textual Domain Specific Language for Task Models: Generating Code for CoTaL, CTTE, and HAMSTERS. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Fowler. 2010a. Domain-specific languages .Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Martin Fowler. 2010b. Domain Specific Languages 1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Debasish Ghosh. 2011. DSL for the uninitiated. Commun. ACM, Vol. 54, 7 (2011), 44--50.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Belinda Giardine, Cathy Riemer, Ross C Hardison, Richard Burhans, Laura Elnitski, Prachi Shah, Yi Zhang, Daniel Blankenberg, Istvan Albert, James Taylor, et al. 2005. Galaxy: a platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome research, Vol. 15, 10 (2005), 1451--1455.Google Scholar
- Yolanda Gil, Ewa Deelman, Mark Ellisman, Thomas Fahringer, Geoffrey Fox, Dennis Gannon, Carole Goble, et al. 2007. Examining the challenges of scientific workflows. Computer, Vol. 40, 12 (2007), 24--32.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David J. Gilmore and Thomas R. G. Green. 1984. Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 21, 1 (1984), 31--48.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carole A Goble et al. 2010. myExperiment: a repository and social network for the sharing of bioinformatics workflows. Nucleic acids research, Vol. 38, suppl_2 (2010), W677--W682.Google Scholar
- Jeremy Goecks, Anton Nekrutenko, et al. 2010. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome biology, Vol. 11, 8 (2010), R86.Google Scholar
- Katharina Görlach, Mirko Sonntag, Dimka Karastoyanova, Frank Leymann, and Michael Reiter. 2011. Conventional workflow technology for scientific simulation. In Guide to e-Science. Springer, New York, NY, 323--352.Google Scholar
- Thomas RG Green and Marian Petre. 1992. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In Human-Computer Interaction: Tasks and Organisation, Proceedings of ECCE-6 (6th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics). GC van der Veer, MJ Tauber, S. Bagnarola and M. Antavolits. Rome, CUD. 167--180.Google Scholar
- Thomas RG Green, Marian Petre, and RKE Bellamy. 1991. Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the'match-mismatch'conjecture. ESP, Vol. 91, 743 (1991), 121--146.Google Scholar
- Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, CA, 904--908.Google Scholar
- Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139--183.Google Scholar
- Petra Heinl, Stefan Horn, Stefan Jablonski, Jens Neeb, et al. 1999. A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 24. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 79--88.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D Hollingsworth. 1995. Workflow Management Coalition: The Workflow Reference Model. Workflow Management Coalition, Vol. 68 (01 1995).Google Scholar
- David Hollingsworth et al. 2004. The workflow reference model: 10 years on. In Fujitsu Services, UK; Technical Committee Chair of WfMC. Citeseer, 295--312.Google Scholar
- Shawn Hoon, Kiran Kumar Ratnapu, Jer-ming Chia, Balamurugan Kumarasamy, Xiao Juguang, Michele Clamp, Arne Stabenau, Simon Potter, Laura Clarke, and Elia Stupka. 2003. Biopipe: a flexible framework for protocol-based bioinformatics analysis. Genome Research, Vol. 13, 8 (2003), 1904--1915.Google Scholar
- Paul Hudak. 1998. Modular domain specific languages and tools. In Software Reuse, 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on. IEEE, 134--142.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Kevin Jacobs and Kacper Surdy. 2016. Apache Flink: Distributed stream data processing. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Frédéric Jouault, Jean Bézivin, and Ivan Kurtev. 2006. TCS:: a DSL for the specification of textual concrete syntaxes in model engineering. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Generative programming and component engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249--254.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Holden Karau. 2017. Unifying the open big data world: The possibilities$ast$ of apache BEAM. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 3981--3981.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard B Kieburtz, Laura McKinney, Jeffrey M Bell, James Hook, Alex Kotov, Jeffrey Lewis, Dino P Oliva, Tim Sheard, Ira Smith, and Lisa Walton. 1996. A software engineering experiment in software component generation. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 542--552.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dimitrios S Kolovos, Richard F Paige, and Fiona AC Polack. 2006. Eclipse development tools for epsilon. In Eclipse Summit Europe, Eclipse Modeling Symposium, Vol. 20062. 200.Google Scholar
- Tomavz Kosar, Sudev Bohra, and Marjan Mernik. 2016. Domain-specific languages: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 71 (2016), 77--91.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Johannes Köster and Sven Rahmann. 2012. Snakemake-a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics, Vol. 28, 19 (2012), 2520--2522.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Lajmi, J. Martinez, and T. Ziadi. 2014. DSLFORGE: Textual modeling on the web. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1255 (01 2014), 25--29.Google Scholar
- Peter Lawrence (Ed.). 1997. Workflow Handbook 1997 .John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Jeremy Leipzig. 2017. A review of bioinformatic pipeline frameworks. Briefings in bioinformatics, Vol. 18, 3 (2017), 530--536.Google Scholar
- James Jim R Lewis and Jeff Sauro. 2017. Revisiting the factor structure of the System Usability Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, Vol. 12, 4 (2017), 183--192.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- James R Lewis and Jeff Sauro. 2009. The factor structure of the system usability scale. In International conference on human centered design. Springer, New York, NY, 94--103.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Heng Li. 2013. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. ArXiv, Vol. 1303 (2013).Google Scholar
- Heng Li, Bob Handsaker, Alec Wysoker, Tim Fennell, Jue Ruan, Nils Homer, Gabor Marth, Goncalo Abecasis, and Richard Durbin. 2009. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics, Vol. 25, 16 (2009), 2078--2079.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- William Lidwell et al. 2010. Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design .Rockport Pub.Google Scholar
- Cui Lin, Shiyong Lu, Xubo Fei, Artem Chebotko, Darshan Pai, Zhaoqiang Lai, Farshad Fotouhi, and Jing Hua. 2009. A reference architecture for scientific workflow management systems and the VIEW SOA solution. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, Vol. 2, 1 (2009), 79--92.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ji Liu, Esther Pacitti, Patrick Valduriez, and Marta Mattoso. 2015. A survey of data-intensive scientific workflow management. Journal of Grid Computing, Vol. 13, 4 (2015), 457--493.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bertram Lud"ascher et al. 2009a. Scientific process automation and workflow management. In Scientific Data Management: Challenges, Technology, and Deployment. CRC press.Google Scholar
- Bertram Lud"ascher, Mathias Weske, Timothy McPhillips, and Shawn Bowers. 2009b. Scientific workflows: Business as usual?. In International Conference on Business Process Management. Springer, New York, NY, 31--47.Google Scholar
- Bertram Ludäscher, Ilkay Altintas, and Amarnath Gupta. 2003. Compiling Abstract Scientific Workflows into Web Service Workflows. In 15th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, 2003., Vol. 2003. IEEE, 251--254. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSDM.2003.1214990Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tanja Magovc and Steven L Salzberg. 2011. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics, Vol. 27, 21 (2011), 2957--2963.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ketan Maheshwari and Johan Montagnat. 2010. Scientific workflow development using both visual and script-based representation. In 2010 6th World Congress on Services. IEEE, 328--335.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Seema Maitrey and C.K. Jha. 2015. MapReduce: Simplified Data Analysis of Big Data. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 57 (2015), 563 -- 571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.392 3rd International Conference on Recent Trends in Computing 2015 (ICRTC-2015).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shalil Majithia, Matthew Shields, Ian Taylor, and Ian Wang. 2004. Triana: A graphical web service composition and execution toolkit. In Web Services, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 514--521.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- James Malone, Andy Brown, Allyson L Lister, Jon Ison, Duncan Hull, Helen Parkinson, and Robert Stevens. 2014. The Software Ontology (SWO): a resource for reproducibility in biomedical data analysis, curation and digital preservation. Journal of biomedical semantics, Vol. 5, 1 (2014), 25.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Daniel D McCracken and Edwin D Reilly. 2003. Backus-naur form (bnf). (2003).Google Scholar
- Paul McGuire. 2007. Getting started with pyparsing ." O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA.Google Scholar
- Marjan Mernik, Jan Heering, and Anthony M Sloane. 2005. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), Vol. 37, 4 (2005), 316--344.Google Scholar
- Golam Mostaeen, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy, and Kevin Schneider. 2018. Fine-Grained Attribute Level Locking Scheme for Collaborative Scientific Workflow Development. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC). 273--277.Google Scholar
- Golam Mostaeen, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy, and Kevin Schneider. 2019. Designing for Real-Time Groupware Systems to Support Complex Scientific Data Analysis. Journal Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, EICS, Article 9 (June 2019), 28 pages.Google Scholar
- Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jakob Nielsen. 2000. Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users, Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox. "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/"Google Scholar
- Shadi A Noghabi et al. 2017. Samza: stateful scalable stream processing at LinkedIn. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 10, 12 (2017), 1634--1645.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Andres Ojamaa, Hele-Mai Haav, and Jaan Penjam. 2015. Semi-automated generation of DSL meta models from formal domain ontologies. In Model and Data Engineering. Springer, New York, NY, 3--15.Google Scholar
- Chris Parnin, Eric Helms, Chris Atlee, Harley Boughton, Mark Ghattas, Andy Glover, James Holman, John Micco, et al. 2017. The top 10 adages in continuous deployment. IEEE Software, Vol. 34, 3 (2017), 86--95.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Terence Parr. 2013. The definitive ANTLR 4 reference .Pragmatic Bookshelf.Google Scholar
- Maja Pesic, Helen Schonenberg, and Wil van der Aalst. 2010. Declarative workflow. In Modern Business Process Automation. Springer, 175--201.Google Scholar
- Marian Petre. 1995. Why Looking Isn't Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Commun. ACM, Vol. 38, 6 (June 1995), 33--44. https://doi.org/10.1145/203241.203251Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carl Adam Petri. 1962. Kommunikation mit Automaten. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
- Akond Rahman et al. 2018. What questions do programmers ask about configuration as code?. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16--22.Google Scholar
- Anthony Rowe, Dimitrios Kalaitzopoulos, Michelle Osmond, Moustafa Ghanem, and Yike Guo. 2003. The discovery net system for high throughput bioinformatics. Bioinformatics, Vol. 19, suppl 1 (2003), i225--i231.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Banani Roy, Amit Kumar Mondal, Chanchal K Roy, Kevin A Schneider, and Kawser Wazed. 2017. Towards a reference architecture for cloud-based plant genotyping and phenotyping analysis frameworks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA). IEEE, 41--50.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Simon P Sadedin, Bernard Pope, and Alicia Oshlack. 2012. Bpipe: a tool for running and managing bioinformatics pipelines. Bioinformatics, Vol. 28, 11 (2012), 1525--1526.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hiroaki Sakai et al. 2013. Rice Annotation Project Database (RAP-DB): an integrative and interactive database for rice genomics. Plant and Cell Physiology, Vol. 54, 2 (2013), e6--e6.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jeff Sauro. 2011. Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS).Google Scholar
- Patrick D Schloss, Sarah L Westcott, Thomas Ryabin, Justine R Hall, Martin Hartmann, Emily B Hollister, Ryan A Lesniewski, Brian B Oakley, Donovan H Parks, Courtney J Robinson, et al. 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol. 75, 23 (2009), 7537--7541.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Helen Schonenberg, Ronny Mans, Nick Russell, Nataliya Mulyar, and Wil van der Aalst. 2008. Process flexibility: A survey of contemporary approaches. In Advances in enterprise engineering I. Springer, New York, NY, 16--30.Google Scholar
- Clare Sloggett, Nuwan Goonasekera, and Enis Afgan. 2013. BioBlend: automating pipeline analyses within Galaxy and CloudMan. Bioinformatics, Vol. 29, 13 (2013), 1685--1686.Google Scholar
- Barry Smith, Michael Ashburner, Cornelius Rosse, Jonathan Bard, William Bug, Werner Ceusters, Louis J Goldberg, Karen Eilbeck, Amelia Ireland, Christopher J Mungall, et al. 2007. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature biotechnology, Vol. 25, 11 (2007), 1251.Google Scholar
- Kenia Sousa, Jean Vanderdonckt, Brian Henderson-Sellers, et al. 2012. Evaluating a graphical notation for modelling software development methodologies. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, Vol. 23, 4 (2012), 195--212.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jared Spool and Will Schroeder. 2001. Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In CHI'01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285--286.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jonathan Sprinkle, Marjan Mernik, Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, and Diomidis Spinellis. 2009. Guest editors' introduction: What kinds of nails need a domain-specific hammer? IEEE software, Vol. 26, 4 (2009), 15--18.Google Scholar
- Robert Tairas, Marjan Mernik, et al. 2008. Using ontologies in the domain analysis of domain-specific languages. In International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, New York, NY, 332--342.Google Scholar
- Gabor Terstyanszky, Tamas Kukla, Tamas Kiss, Peter Kacsuk, et al. 2014. Enabling scientific workflow sharing through coarse-grained interoperability. Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 37 (2014), 46--59.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Tom Tullis and Bill Albert. 2013. Chapter 6 - Self-Reported Metrics. In Measuring the User Experience (Second Edition) second edition ed.), Tom Tullis and Bill Albert (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 121 -- 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0--12--415781--1.00006--6Google Scholar
- Jan Van den Bergh and Kris Luyten. 2017. DICE-R: Defining human-robot interaction with composite events. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, 117--122.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Wil van der Aalst and Arthur ter Hofstede. 1999. Workflow Patterns Initiative. http://www.workflowpatterns.com Retrieved December 12, 2019 fromGoogle Scholar
- Wil van der Aalst and Arthur ter Hofstede. 2005. YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information systems, Vol. 30, 4 (2005), 245--275.Google Scholar
- Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli, Arun C Murthy, Chris Douglas, Sharad Agarwal, Mahadev Konar, Robert Evans, Thomas Graves, Jason Lowe, Hitesh Shah, Siddharth Seth, et al. 2013. Apache hadoop yarn: Yet another resource negotiator. In Proceedings of the 4th annual Symposium on Cloud Computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Markus Völter, Sebastian Benz, Christian Dietrich, et al. 2013. DSL Engineering - Designing, Implementing and Using Domain-Specific Languages .dslbook.org. http://www.dslbook.orgGoogle Scholar
- Tom White. 2009. Hadoop: The Definitive Guide 1st ed.). O'Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Guido Wirtz, Mathias Weske, and Holger Giese. 2000. Extending UML with Workflow Modeling Capabilities .Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 30--41. https://doi.org/10.1007/10722620_3Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Katherine Wolstencroft, Robert Haines, Fellows, et al. 2013. The Taverna workflow suite: designing and executing workflows of Web Services on the desktop, web or in the cloud. Nucleic acids research, Vol. 41, W1 (2013), W557--W561.Google Scholar
- Xiaorong Xiang and Gregory Madey. 2007. Improving the reuse of ScientificWorkflows and their by-products. In IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007). IEEE, 792--799.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Matei Zaharia, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Michael J Franklin, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2010. Spark: Cluster computing with working sets. HotCloud, Vol. 10, 10--10 (2010), 95.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Matei Zaharia, Reynold S Xin, Patrick Wendell, Tathagata Das, Michael Armbrust, Ankur Dave, Xiangrui Meng, Josh Rosen, Shivaram Venkataraman, Michael J Franklin, et al. 2016. Apache spark: a unified engine for big data processing. Commun. ACM, Vol. 59, 11 (2016), 56--65.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jiajie Zhang, Kassian Kobert, Tomávs Flouri, and Alexandros Stamatakis. 2013. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics, Vol. 30, 5 (2013), 614--620.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
VizSciFlow: A Visually Guided Scripting Framework for Supporting Complex Scientific Data Analysis
Recommendations
A Grid workflow infrastructure: Research Articles
Workflow in Grid SystemsIn this paper we propose a Grid workflow infrastructure, which serves as the base for specifying and executing collaborative interactive workflows within computational Grids. The infrastructure is based on the Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) and ...
Towards scientific workflow patterns
WORKS '09: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale ScienceScientific workflow management systems provide users with a set of design primitives for process modeling and execution features that have different semantics and capabilities comparing to traditional workflow management systems. The main limitation ...
Computer-Assisted Scientific Workflow Design
Workflows are increasingly adopted to describe large-scale data- and compute-intensive processes that can take advantage of today's Distributed Computing Infrastructures. Still, most Scientific Workflow formalisms are notoriously difficult to fully ...






Comments