<\/p>\n
After generating various process-oriented workflow views of LIGO gravitational wave script, we reviewed different YW models, made some modifications and I continued to generate combined workflow view (data-oriented and process-oriented workflow view) , then began to compare different YW models, searched containment relationships between those generated models<\/span><\/p>\n The second task is to \u00a0create\u00a0queries to answer how the workflow is created, the dependencies of input and output in the lineage graph. Then applying\u00a0YesWorkflow the feature such as \u201clog\u201d and \u201cURI template\u201d which are written by a user explicitly to get a runtime provenance. Additionally, we discussed\u00a0running the LIGO gravitational wave project in noWorkflow and\u00a0<\/span>building a bridge between YW and NW. <\/span><\/p>\n Next week, we will have a more detailed discussion about runtime provenance\u00a0and\u00a0applyingYW and NW model in other use case ( MRI script).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After generating various process-oriented workflow views of LIGO gravitational wave script, we reviewed different YW models, made some modifications and I continued to generate combined workflow view (data-oriented and process-oriented workflow view) , then began to compare different YW models, searched containment relationships between those generated models The second Continue reading Week 2: Reproducibility of Script-Based Workflows<\/span>