New ProvenanceDM working draft released, part I

[Mireille Louys]

Hi Ole , hi DM,

Thanks for your feedback . I am sure we can stabilize the requirements 
for provenance Entities/Activities /Agents relations and their design

by discussion with pipeline designers / architects of the current 
astronomical projects.

This would be interesting to discuss this in Adass and next interop 
together with other participants.

Any other use-cases can help and we are eager to take them into account 
in order to test the model.

Best regards, Mireille.

Le 17/10/2017 à 11:24, Ole Streicher a écrit :
> Hi Markus,
>
> On 17.10.2017 09:25, Markus Demleitner wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:50:13PM +0200, Kristin Riebe wrote:
>>> Well, I think that 'wasDerivedFrom' is meant to be used to just give you the
>>> main track, i.e. the main progenitors. So I expect a wasDerivedFrom
>>> relationship only to those input files of the generating activity that are
>>> the main inputs. E.g. if an image is corrected using a dark frame, then the
>>> image was derived from the raw image, not from the dark frame. But the raw
>>> image and dark frame are both inputs.
>> Well, but how exactly are they different?  When using Provenance,
>>
>> * if it's about debugging, a problem might equally well result from
>>    an issue in the dark frame or the raw image (or perhaps an
>>    interesting interaction between border cases in both).
>> * if it's about dependency modeling, the output will have to be
>>    re-made whether it's the dark frame or the raw image that's
>>    changed.
>> * if it's about giving credit, I'd argue if a dark frame (or, say, a
>>    superflat) is done with enough deliberation that credit is given on
>>    it in the first place, then this should be preserved in further
>>    products, too.
> To give you a real-world use case, which is kind-of debugging: Someone
> detects an "interesting structure" on a science-ready exposure, and to
> be sure he wants to process the raw image with his own, alternative
> pipeline (which may or may not need the same kind of calibration). Then
> he has to find out "which is *the* raw image that I need to process?",
> and the answer is wasDerivedFrom (maybe recursively).
>
> This is also something that may be already provided by the metadata: the
> standard ESO files have some provenance information in the header, and
> they distinguish between "RAW" and "CALIB" input files. Just as an
> example one that I currently work with:
>
> ESO PRO REC1 ID = 'muse_scibasic'
> ESO PRO REC1 DRS ID = 'cpl-6.5.1'
> ESO PRO REC1 PIPE ID = 'muse/1.0'
> ESO PRO REC1 RAW1 NAME = 'R_AST_RA05_02.301116.fits'
> ESO PRO REC1 RAW1 CATG = 'OBJECT  '
> ESO PRO DATANCOM =  1
> ESO PRO REC1 CAL1 NAME = 'badpix_table.fits'
> ESO PRO REC1 CAL1 CATG = 'BADPIX_TABLE'
> ESO PRO REC1 CAL2 NAME = [...]
>
> Best regards
>
> Ole

-- 
--
Mireille Louys
CDS  						Laboratoire Icube
Observatoire de Strasbourg	Telecom Physique Strasbourg
11 rue de l'Université 		300, Bd Sebastien Brandt CS 10413 		
F- 67000-STRASBOURG			F-67412 ILLKIRCH Cedex
tel: +33 3 68 85 24 34

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20171018/3957da6b/attachment.html>