[provenance-challenge] Re: Optional Query 9

[Paul Groth]

Hi,

Looking at the question, I agree that it's not a provenance query. As  
has been pointed out this is a provenance query combined with a query  
over a workflow.

I just wanted to let everyone know that the optional queries are just  
queries suggested by others. In this case, Manish posted the query I  
believe. Manish, do you want to chime in here?

Otherwise, I think I'll just put a note on the page that this isn't a  
pure provenance query.

Thanks,
Paul

On Apr 28, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Ben Clifford wrote:

>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>> I wanted to raise an objection I have to suggested query nine and see
>> what kind of responses my objection yields.
>>
>> Which steps were not executed because of halt?
>>
>> I believe this is *not* a provenance query, it asks a question about
>> what may have happened in the future not a question about what has
>> happened in the past. To me, this query seems more at home in a  
>> workflow
>> system study rather than a challenge studying the interoperability  
>> of a
>> provenance model.
>
> I am of the same opinion (probably because our system cannot easily  
> answer
> this ;)
>
> VDS, which was the predecessor project to Swift, could probably have
> answered this with its Virtual Data Catalog because it preloaded  
> workflow
> steps. However, Swift, my present project, cannot easily answer  
> this, as
> in many cases we do not know what future steps will be without  
> evaluating
> a SwiftScript program further, something we don't/can't do if some  
> part
> has failed.
>
> -- 
>