Views on Scientific Workflows

  • Mirko Sonntag
  • Katharina Görlach
  • Dimka Karastoyanova
  • Frank Leymann
  • Polina Malets
  • David Schumm
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 90)


Workflows are becoming more and more important in e-Science due to the support they provide to scientists in computer simulations, experiments and calculations. Our experiences with workflows in this field and the literature show that scientific workflows consist of a large number of related information. This information is difficult to deal with in a single perspective and has changing importance to scientists in the different workflow lifecycle phases. In this paper we apply viewing techniques known from business process management to (service-based) scientific workflows to address these issues. We describe seven of the most relevant views and point out realization challenges. We argue that the selected views facilitate the handling of workflows to scientists and add further value to scientific workflow systems. An implementation of a subset of the views based on Web services and BPEL shows the feasibility of the approach. The presented work has the goal to increase additionally the acceptance of the workflow technology in e-Science.


Process views BPEL Web services SOA simulation workflows scientific workflows 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Taylor, I., Deelman, E., Gannon, D., Shields, M.: Workflows for e-Science: Scientific Workflows for Grids. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berriman, G.B., Deelman, E., Good, J., et al.: Generating Complex Astronomy Workflows. In: Taylor, I., et al. (eds.) Workflows for e-Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maechling, P., Deelman, E., Zhao, L., et al.: SCEC CyberShake Workflows—Automating Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Calculations. In: Taylor, I., et al. (eds.) Workflows for e-Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, A.: Workflow and Biodiversity e-Science. In: Taylor, I., et al. (eds.) Workflows for e-Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deelman, E., Mehta, G., Singh, G., et al.: Pegasus: Mapping Large-Scale Workflows to Distributed Resources. In: Taylor, I., et al. (eds.) Workflows for e-Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing Customized Process Views. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao, X., Liu, C., Sadiq, W., et al.: Implementing Process Views in the Web Service Environment. World Wide Web Journal 14(1), 27–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Business Process Model Abstraction. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sonntag, M., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: The Missing Features Of Workflow Systems For Scientific Computations. In: Proc. of the 3rd Grid Workflow Workshop (GWW), GI-Edition LNI, Volume P-160 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonntag, M., Karastoyanova, D., Deelman, E.: Bridging The Gap Between Business And Scientific Workflows. In: Proc. of the IEEE 6th Int. Conf. on e-Science. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonntag, M., Hotta, S., Karastoyanova, D., Molnar, D., Schmauder, S.: Workflow-Based Distributed Environment For Legacy Simulation Applications. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Software and Data Technologies (ICSOFT 2011), Poster Presentation (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schumm, D., Anstett, T., Leymann, F., Schleicher, D.: Applicability of Process Viewing Patterns in Business Process Management. In: Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Models and Model-driven Methods for Service Engineering (3M4SE 2010). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schumm, D., Leymann, F., Streule, A.: Process Viewing Patterns. In: Proc. of the 14th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2010). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sonntag, M., Karastoyanova, D.: Next Generation Interactive Scientific Experimenting Based On The Workflow Technology. In: Proc. of the 21st IASTED Int. Conf. on Modelling and Simulation. Acta Press (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goderis, A., Sattler, U., Lord, P., Goble, C.A.: Seven Bottlenecks to Workflow Reuse and Repurposing. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 323–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Avrilionis, D., Cunin, P.Y., Fernström, C.: OPSIS: A View Mechanism for Software Processes Which Supports Their Evolution And Reuse. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schumm, D., Leymann, F., Streule, A.: Process Views to Support Compliance Management in Business Processes. In: Proc. of the 11th Int. Conf. on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies (EC Web). Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS): Business Process Execution Language 2.0, BPEL (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: View-Based Process Visualization. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reichert, M., Bassil, S., Bobrik, R., Bauer, T.: The Proviado Access Control Model for Business Process Monitoring Components. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems—An International Journal 5(3), 1860–6059 (2010) ISSN 1860-6059Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM 38(6) (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen-Boulakia, S., Biton, O., Cohen, S., Davidson, S.B.: Addressing the Provenance Challenge using ZOOM. In: Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 20 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). OMG Available Specification, Version 2.0, Beta 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goerlach, K., Sonntag, M., Karastoyanova, D., et al.: Conventional Workflow Technology for Scientific Simulation. In: Yang, X., Wang, L., Jie, W. (eds.) Guide to e-Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Process Mining Group. ProM (2011),
  26. 26.
    Sonntag, M.: Views on scientific workflows. Prototype demo (2011),
  27. 27.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On The Usage Of Labels And Icons In Business Process Modeling. Int. Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 1(2) (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirko Sonntag
    • 1
  • Katharina Görlach
    • 1
  • Dimka Karastoyanova
    • 1
  • Frank Leymann
    • 1
  • Polina Malets
    • 1
  • David Schumm
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Architecture of Application SystemsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations