W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

Re: [SPAM] OpenWFE - other workflow formalisms and engines

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:17:53 -0400
Message-Id: <2E6A3E2D-5557-4D15-92AD-21A8AE057585@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Thanks for this info, Chimezie.

I completely agree with your avoidance of re-inventing this  
particular wheel.

I think the point you make at the end of this email is a very  
important one.  I assume the answer is it's a little bit of both.

That is why I posted my question - really just a slight elaboration  
on Joanne's request.

So - in regards to the issue Chimezie stated below - workflow  
vocabularies vs. workflow formalisms/engines capable of using them -  
how does Taverna weigh in.  I assume given those who've been working  
on Taverna development this issue of use of formal semantic  
frameworks for workflow entities & relations are in fact a part of  
what Taverna uses to drive decisions and assemble run-time parameters  
& data sets.

If this issue was discussed today in the ACPP TCon, the minutes may  
suffice to answer this question.


On Jul 18, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> I haven't used OpenWFE extensively but at several points in the  
> past I had done some cursory research for workflow engines and  
> common methodologies between engines and liked what I saw with  
> OpenWFE, mostly because the workflow patterns supported seemed  
> comprehensive, it is a well-documented open source project, and the  
> exchange format for process definitions was an XML document.
> There may be better alternatives, I can't be sure, but the concern  
> I had was in not reinventing the wheel where there is a well- 
> established precedent.  It seems to me that workflow / process  
> modeling is quite domain agnostic.  However, in the recent ACPP  
> teleconference, it was mentioned that there are already RDF  
> vocabularies for process / workflow modeling that may not cover  
> what is needed for decision support reasoning.
> I wonder if that is a limitation of those particular vocabularies  
> or the current state of workflow modeling methodologies (such as  
> those used by OpenWFE)
> Chimezie Ogbuji
> Lead Systems Analyst
> Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
> Cleveland Clinic Foundation
> 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
> Cleveland, Ohio 44195
> Office: (216)444-8593
> ogbujic@ccf.org

Bill Bug
Senior Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)

Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu

This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential. 
This information is intended solely for the use of the individual 
to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us 
immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete 
all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 21:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:27 UTC