Advertisement

A Framework for Provenance-Preserving History Distribution and Incremental Reduction

  • Alberto Lluch LafuenteEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11665)

Abstract

Provenance properties help asses the level of trust on the integrity of resources and events. One of the problems of interest is to find the right balance between the expressive power of the provenance specification language and the amount of historical information that needs to be remembered for each resource or event. This gives rise to possibly conflicting objectives relevant to integrity, privacy, and performance. Related problems are how to reduce historical information in a way that the provenance properties of interest are preserved, that is suitable for a distributed setting, and that relies on an incremental construction. We investigate these problems in a simple model of computation where resources/events and their dependencies form an acyclic directed graph, and computation steps consist of addition of new resources and of provenance-based queries. The model is agnostic with respect to the actual provenance specification language. We present then a framework, parametric on such language, for distributing, and incrementally constructing reduced histories in a sound and complete way. In the resulting model of computation, reduced histories are computed incrementally and queries are tested locally on reduced histories. We study different choices for instantiating the framework with concrete provenance specification languages, and their corresponding provenance-preserving history reduction techniques.

Keywords

Provenance Integrity Concurrency theory Temporal logics Minimisation 

References

  1. 1.
    Aceto, L., De Nicola, R., Fantechi, A.: Testing equivalences for event structures. In: Zilli, M.V. (ed.) Mathematical Models for the Semantics of Parallelism. LNCS, vol. 280, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-18419-8_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abd Alrahman, Y., De Nicola, R., Loreti, M.: On the power of attribute-based communication. In: Albert, E., Lanese, I. (eds.) FORTE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9688, pp. 1–18. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39570-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altintas, I., Wang, J., Crawl, D., Li, W.: Challenges and approaches for distributed workflow-driven analysis of large-scale biological data: vision paper. In: Srivastava, D., Ari, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops, Berlin, Germany, 30 March 2012, pp. 73–78. ACM (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2320765.2320791
  4. 4.
    Bodei, C., Degano, P., Ferrari, G.L., Galletta, L.: Tracing where IoT data are collected and aggregated. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 13(3) (2017).  https://doi.org/10.23638/LMCS-13(3:5)2017
  5. 5.
    Chavan, A., Huang, S., Deshpande, A., Elmore, A.J., Madden, S., Parameswaran, A.G.: Towards a unified query language for provenance and versioning. In: Missier, P., Zhao, J. (eds.) 7th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance, TaPP 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 8–9 July 2015. USENIX Association (2015). https://www.usenix.org/conference/tapp15/workshop-program/presentation/chavan
  6. 6.
    Davidson, S.B., Freire, J.: Provenance and scientific workflows: challenges and opportunities. In: Wang, J.T. (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 10–12 June 2008, pp. 1345–1350. ACM (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1376616.1376772
  7. 7.
    De Nicola, R.: Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Inf. 24(2), 211–237 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00264365MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G.L., Pugliese, R.: KLAIM: a kernel language for agents interaction and mobility. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(5), 315–330 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1109/32.685256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G.L., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A formal approach to the engineering of domain-specific distributed systems. In: Serugendo, G.D.M., Loreti, M. (eds.) COORDINATION 2018. LNCS, vol. 10852, pp. 110–141. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92408-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 83–133 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(84)90113-0MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Nicola, R., Loreti, M., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A formal approach to autonomic systems programming: the SCEL language. TAAS 9(2), 7:1–7:29 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2619998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Nicola, R., Montanari, U., Vaandrager, F.: Back and forth bisimulations. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0039058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.: Action versus state based logics for transition systems. In: Guessarian, I. (ed.) LITP 1990. LNCS, vol. 469, pp. 407–419. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53479-2_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.W.: Three logics for branching bisimulation. J. ACM 42(2), 458–487 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1145/201019.201032MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.: An efficient algorithm for branching bisimulation and stuttering equivalence. In: Paterson, M.S. (ed.) ICALP 1990. LNCS, vol. 443, pp. 626–638. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0032063CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holland, D.A., Braun, U.J., Maclean, D., Muniswamy-Reddy, K.K., Seltzer, M.I.: Choosing a data model and query language for provenance. In: Freire, J., Koop, D. (eds.) IPAW 2008. LNCS, vol. 5272. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paige, R., Tarjan, R.E.: Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 16(6), 973–989 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1137/0216062MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baldoni, R., De Nicola, R., Prinetto, P.: The future of cybersecurity in Italy: strategic focus areas. Laboratorio Nazionale di Cybersecurity, CINI - Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per l’Informatica (2018). https://www.consorzio-cini.it/index.php/it/labcs-home/libro-bianco

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations