Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675414›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2019

Sharing interoperable workflow provenance: A review of best practices and their practical application in CWLProv.

Farah Zaib Khan, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Richard O Sinnott, Andrew Lonie, Carole Goble, Michael R Crusoe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fusion of computational and experimental provenance in RO-Crate.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pre-exascale HPC approaches for molecular dynamics simulations. Covid-19 research: A use case.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Farah Zaib KhanThe University of Melbourne, School of Computing and Information System, Doug Mcdonnell Building, Parkville, Australia, 3052.
Stian Soiland-ReyesCommon Workflow Language Project.
Richard O SinnottThe University of Melbourne, School of Computing and Information System, Doug Mcdonnell Building, Parkville, Australia, 3052.
Andrew LonieThe University of Melbourne, School of Computing and Information System, Doug Mcdonnell Building, Parkville, Australia, 3052.
Carole GobleThe University of Manchester, UK.
Michael R CrusoeCommon Workflow Language Project.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe automation of data analysis in the form of scientific workflows has become a widely adopted practice in many fields of research. Computationally driven data-intensive experiments using workflows enable automation, scaling, adaptation, and provenance support. However, there are still several challenges associated with the effective sharing, publication, and reproducibility of such workflows due to the incomplete capture of provenance and lack of interoperability between different technical (software) platforms.

resultsBased on best-practice recommendations identified from the literature on workflow design, sharing, and publishing, we define a hierarchical provenance framework to achieve uniformity in provenance and support comprehensive and fully re-executable workflows equipped with domain-specific information. To realize this framework, we present CWLProv, a standard-based format to represent any workflow-based computational analysis to produce workflow output artefacts that satisfy the various levels of provenance. We use open source community-driven standards, interoperable workflow definitions in Common Workflow Language (CWL), structured provenance representation using the W3C PROV model, and resource aggregation and sharing as workflow-centric research objects generated along with the final outputs of a given workflow enactment. We demonstrate the utility of this approach through a practical implementation of CWLProv and evaluation using real-life genomic workflows developed by independent groups.

conclusionsThe underlying principles of the standards utilized by CWLProv enable semantically rich and executable research objects that capture computational workflows with retrospective provenance such that any platform supporting CWL will be able to understand the analysis, reuse the methods for partial reruns, or reproduce the analysis to validate the published findings.

Indexed as

GenomicsModels, TheoreticalWorkflowHumansSoftwareBagItCommon Workflow LanguagecontainersCWLinteroperabilityprovenanceResearch ObjectROscientific workflows

Identifiers

PMID31675414
PMCPMC6824458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.