Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

VizSciFlow: A Visually Guided Scripting Framework for Supporting Complex Scientific Data Analysis

Published: 18 June 2020 Publication History

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.

References

[1]
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.
[2]
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/10.1145/2110205.2110215
[3]
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.2004.44
[4]
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).
[5]
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/129
[6]
Simon Andrews et al. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data.
[7]
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.
[8]
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.
[9]
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.
[10]
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.
[11]
Jon Bentley. 1986. Programming pearls: little languages. Commun. ACM, Vol. 29, 8 (1986), 711--721.
[12]
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.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
John Brooke. 2013. SUS: a retrospective. Journal of usability studies, Vol. 8, 2 (2013), 29--40.
[16]
John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, Vol. 189, 194 (1996), 4--7.
[17]
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.
[18]
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.
[19]
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.
[20]
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.
[21]
Jinjun Chen and Wil van der Aalst. 2007. On scientific workflows. IEEE Computer Society's Technical Committee for Scalable Computing, Vol. 9 (2007).
[22]
Michele Chinosi and Alberto Trombetta. 2012. BPMN: An introduction to the standard. Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 34, 1 (2012), 124--134.
[23]
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.v18:10
[24]
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.
[25]
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.
[26]
Steve Cook, Gareth Jones, Stuart Kent, and Alan Cameron Wills. 2007. Domain-specific development with visual studio dsl tools .Pearson Education.
[27]
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.
[28]
Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. 2008. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun. ACM, Vol. 51, 1 (2008), 107--113.
[29]
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.
[30]
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.
[31]
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_7
[32]
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.
[33]
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.
[34]
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.
[35]
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.
[36]
Martin Fowler. 2010a. Domain-specific languages .Pearson Education.
[37]
Martin Fowler. 2010b. Domain Specific Languages 1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.
[38]
Debasish Ghosh. 2011. DSL for the uninitiated. Commun. ACM, Vol. 54, 7 (2011), 44--50.
[39]
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.
[40]
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.
[41]
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.
[42]
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.
[43]
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.
[44]
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.
[45]
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.
[46]
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.
[47]
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.
[48]
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.
[49]
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.
[50]
D Hollingsworth. 1995. Workflow Management Coalition: The Workflow Reference Model. Workflow Management Coalition, Vol. 68 (01 1995).
[51]
David Hollingsworth et al. 2004. The workflow reference model: 10 years on. In Fujitsu Services, UK; Technical Committee Chair of WfMC. Citeseer, 295--312.
[52]
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.
[53]
Paul Hudak. 1998. Modular domain specific languages and tools. In Software Reuse, 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on. IEEE, 134--142.
[54]
Kevin Jacobs and Kacper Surdy. 2016. Apache Flink: Distributed stream data processing. Technical Report.
[55]
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.
[56]
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.
[57]
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.
[58]
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.
[59]
Tomavz Kosar, Sudev Bohra, and Marjan Mernik. 2016. Domain-specific languages: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 71 (2016), 77--91.
[60]
Johannes Köster and Sven Rahmann. 2012. Snakemake-a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics, Vol. 28, 19 (2012), 2520--2522.
[61]
A. Lajmi, J. Martinez, and T. Ziadi. 2014. DSLFORGE: Textual modeling on the web. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1255 (01 2014), 25--29.
[62]
Peter Lawrence (Ed.). 1997. Workflow Handbook 1997 .John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
[63]
Jeremy Leipzig. 2017. A review of bioinformatic pipeline frameworks. Briefings in bioinformatics, Vol. 18, 3 (2017), 530--536.
[64]
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.
[65]
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.
[66]
Heng Li. 2013. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. ArXiv, Vol. 1303 (2013).
[67]
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.
[68]
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.
[69]
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.
[70]
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.
[71]
Bertram Lud"ascher et al. 2009a. Scientific process automation and workflow management. In Scientific Data Management: Challenges, Technology, and Deployment. CRC press.
[72]
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.
[73]
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.2003.1214990
[74]
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.
[75]
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.
[76]
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).
[77]
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.
[78]
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.
[79]
Daniel D McCracken and Edwin D Reilly. 2003. Backus-naur form (bnf). (2003).
[80]
Paul McGuire. 2007. Getting started with pyparsing ." O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA.
[81]
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.
[82]
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.
[83]
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.
[84]
Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Elsevier.
[85]
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/"
[86]
Shadi A Noghabi et al. 2017. Samza: stateful scalable stream processing at LinkedIn. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 10, 12 (2017), 1634--1645.
[87]
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.
[88]
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.
[89]
Terence Parr. 2013. The definitive ANTLR 4 reference .Pragmatic Bookshelf.
[90]
Maja Pesic, Helen Schonenberg, and Wil van der Aalst. 2010. Declarative workflow. In Modern Business Process Automation. Springer, 175--201.
[91]
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/10.1145/203241.203251
[92]
Carl Adam Petri. 1962. Kommunikation mit Automaten. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Hamburg.
[93]
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.
[94]
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.
[95]
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.
[96]
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.
[97]
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.
[98]
Jeff Sauro. 2011. Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS).
[99]
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.
[100]
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.
[101]
Clare Sloggett, Nuwan Goonasekera, and Enis Afgan. 2013. BioBlend: automating pipeline analyses within Galaxy and CloudMan. Bioinformatics, Vol. 29, 13 (2013), 1685--1686.
[102]
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.
[103]
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.
[104]
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.
[105]
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.
[106]
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.
[107]
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.
[108]
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--6
[109]
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.
[110]
Wil van der Aalst and Arthur ter Hofstede. 1999. Workflow Patterns Initiative. http://www.workflowpatterns.com Retrieved December 12, 2019 from
[111]
Wil van der Aalst and Arthur ter Hofstede. 2005. YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information systems, Vol. 30, 4 (2005), 245--275.
[112]
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.
[113]
Markus Völter, Sebastian Benz, Christian Dietrich, et al. 2013. DSL Engineering - Designing, Implementing and Using Domain-Specific Languages .dslbook.org. http://www.dslbook.org
[114]
Tom White. 2009. Hadoop: The Definitive Guide 1st ed.). O'Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA.
[115]
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_3
[116]
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.
[117]
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.
[118]
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.
[119]
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.
[120]
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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Reproducibility Challenges of External Computational Experiments in Scientific Workflow Management SystemsHuman-Computer Interaction10.1007/978-3-031-60441-6_13(189-207)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
  • (2024)On the use of big data frameworks in big service managementJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.264236:7Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
  • (2023)Reusability Challenges of Scientific Workflows: A Case Study for Galaxy2023 30th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)10.1109/APSEC60848.2023.00039(289-298)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 4, Issue EICS
EICS
June 2020
534 pages
EISSN:2573-0142
DOI:10.1145/3407187
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 June 2020
Online AM: 07 May 2020
Published in PACMHCI Volume 4, Issue EICS

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. DSL
  2. scientific data analysis
  3. workflow language
  4. workflow modeling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Reproducibility Challenges of External Computational Experiments in Scientific Workflow Management SystemsHuman-Computer Interaction10.1007/978-3-031-60441-6_13(189-207)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
  • (2024)On the use of big data frameworks in big service managementJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.264236:7Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
  • (2023)Reusability Challenges of Scientific Workflows: A Case Study for Galaxy2023 30th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)10.1109/APSEC60848.2023.00039(289-298)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2023
  • (2023)Extensibility Challenges of Scientific Workflow Management SystemsHuman Interface and the Management of Information10.1007/978-3-031-35129-7_4(51-70)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
  • (2022)Facilitating Asynchronous Collaboration in Scientific Workflow Composition Using ProvenanceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35345206:EICS(1-26)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2022
  • (2022)A Domain-Specific Composition Environment for Provenance Query of Scientific Workflows2022 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science (WORKS)10.1109/WORKS56498.2022.00008(19-26)Online publication date: Nov-2022
  • (2022)Challenges of Provenance in Scientific Workflow Management Systems2022 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science (WORKS)10.1109/WORKS56498.2022.00007(10-18)Online publication date: Nov-2022
  • (2021)Influenza-like symptom recognition using mobile sensing and graph neural networksProceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning10.1145/3450439.3451880(291-300)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2021
  • (2021)Listen2CoughProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/34481245:1(1-22)Online publication date: 30-Mar-2021

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media