Journal of Grid Computing

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 429–455 | Cite as

Fine-Grain Interoperability of Scientific Workflows in Distributed Computing Infrastructures

  • Kassian PlankensteinerEmail author
  • Radu Prodan
  • Matthias Janetschek
  • Thomas Fahringer
  • Johan Montagnat
  • David Rogers
  • Ian Harvey
  • Ian Taylor
  • Ákos Balaskó
  • Péter Kacsuk


Today there exist a wide variety of scientific workflow management systems, each designed to fulfill the needs of a certain scientific community. Unfortunately, once a workflow application has been designed in one particular system it becomes very hard to share it with users working with different systems. Portability of workflows and interoperability between current systems barely exists. In this work, we present the fine-grained interoperability solution proposed in the SHIWA European project that brings together four representative European workflow systems: ASKALON, MOTEUR, WS-PGRADE, and Triana. The proposed interoperability is realised at two levels of abstraction: abstract and concrete. At the abstract level, we propose a generic Interoperable Workflow Intermediate Representation (IWIR) that can be used as a common bridge for translating workflows between different languages independent of the underlying distributed computing infrastructure. At the concrete level, we propose a bundling technique that aggregates the abstract IWIR representation and concrete task representations to enable workflow instantiation, execution and scheduling. We illustrate case studies using two real-workflow applications designed in a native environment and then translated and executed by a foreign workflow system in a foreign distributed computing infrastructure.


Scientific workflow Interoperability Portability Intermediate representation Distributed computing Grid computing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange (OAI-ORE). Accessed 30 May 2013
  2. 2.
    Resource Description Framework (RDF). Accessed 30 May 2013
  3. 3.
    Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). (2009)
  4. 4.
    SHIWA: SHaring Interoperable Workflows for large-scale scientific simulation on Available DCIs. (2011)
  5. 5.
    Anjomshoaa, A., Brisard, F., Drescher, M., Fellows, D., Ly, A., McGough, S., Pulsipher, D., Savva, A.: Job Submission Description Language (JSDL) Specification, Version 1.0. Technical report, Global Grid Forum (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berglund, A., Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M.F., Kay, M., Robie, J., Siméon, J.: XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 (W3C Recommendation). Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.J., Ryman, A., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language. W3C Recommendation, 26. (2007)
  8. 8.
    Clark, J., DeRose, S.: XML Path Language (XPath) 1.0 (W3C Recommendation). Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deelman, E., Singh, G., Su, M.H., Blythe, J., Gil, Y., Kesselman, C., Mehta, G., Vahi, K., Berriman, G.B., Good, J., et al.: Pegasus: a framework for mapping complex scientific workflows onto distributed systems. Sci. Program. 13(3), 219–237 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeRemer, F., Kron, H.H.: Programming-in-the-large versus programming-in-the-small. In: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, No. 2, pp. 80–86. IEEE (1976)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dobrusky, W.B., Steel, T.B.: Universal computer-oriented language. Commun. ACM 4, 138 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elmroth, E., Hernández, F., Tordsson, J.: Three Fundamental Dimensions of Scientific Workflow Interoperability: Model of Computation, Language, and Execution Environment, vol. 26, pp. 245–256. Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahringer, T., Prodan, R., et al.: ASKALON: A Development and Grid Computing Environment for Scientific Workflows, chapter Frameworks and Tools: Workflow Generation, Refinement and Execution. Workflows for e-Science. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glatard, T., Montagnat, J., Lingrand, D., Pennec, X.: Flexible and efficient workflow deployment of data-intensive applications on grids with moteur. Int. J. High. Perform. Comput. Appl. 22(3), 347–360 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison, A., Rogers, D., Taylor, I.: SHIWA Desktop. SHIWA Deliverable D5.2 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordan, D., Evdemon, J., Alves, A., Arkin, A., Askary, S., Barreto, C., Bloch, B., Curbera, F., Ford, M., Goland, Y., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, 11. (2007)
  17. 17.
    Kacsuk, P.: P-GRADE portal family for grid infrastructures. Concurr. Comput.: Pract. Exper. 23(3), 235–245 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindholm, T., Yellin, F., Bracha, G., Buckley, A.: The JavaTMVirtual Machine Specification, Java SE 7th edn. Technical report, Oracle America, Inc. (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merrill, J.: GENERIC and GIMPLE: A new tree representation for entire functions. In: Proceedings of the 2003 GCC Developers’ Summit, pp. 171–179 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Missier, P., Turi, D., Goble, C., et al.: Taverna workflows: Syntax and semantics. In: IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Model, B.P.: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG Specification, Object Management Group. (2011)
  22. 22.
    Montagnat, J., Isnard, B., Glatard, T., Maheshwari, K., Fornarino, M.B.: A data-driven workflow language for grids based on array programming principles. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science, WORKS’09, pp. 7:1–7:10. New York, NY, USA, ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nitzsche, J., VanLessen, T., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: BPEL light. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Business Process Management, BPM 2007, Brisbane, Australia, September 24–28, 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 214–229. Springer (2007). ISBN: 978-3-540-75183-0Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plankensteiner, K., Prodan, R., Fahringer, T., Montagnat, J., Cerezo, N., Rogers, D., Harvey, I., Balasko, A., et al.: Fine-grained interoperability architecture and case studies. SHIWA Deliverable D6.2 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plankensteiner, K., Prodan, R., Fahringer, T., Montagnat, J., et al.: Interoperable workflow intermediate representation. SHIWA Deliverable D6.1 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tan, W., Missier, P., Foster, I., Madduri, R., DeRoure, D., Goble, C.: A Comparison of Using Taverna and BPEL in Building Scientific Workflows: the case of caGrid. In: Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 22, pp. 1098–1117. Wiley Online Library (2009). ISSN: 1532-0634Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor, I., Shields, M., Wang, I., Rana, R.: Triana applications within Grid computing and peer to peer environments. J. Grid Computing 1(2), 199–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wells, P.D.: A universal intermediate representation for massively parallel software development. SIGPLAN Not. 39(5), 48–57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    W.P.D.I.X.M.L. WfMC. Process Definition Language (XPDL), WfMC Standards. Technical report, WFMC-TC-1025, (2001)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kassian Plankensteiner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Radu Prodan
    • 1
  • Matthias Janetschek
    • 1
  • Thomas Fahringer
    • 1
  • Johan Montagnat
    • 2
  • David Rogers
    • 3
  • Ian Harvey
    • 3
  • Ian Taylor
    • 3
  • Ákos Balaskó
    • 4
  • Péter Kacsuk
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.I3S labCNRSSophia AntipolisFrance
  3. 3.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  4. 4.MTA SZTAKIBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations