Re: [science-iwg] Workflows, workflows and more workflows

["Montoya, David Richard" <dmont@xxxxxxxx>]

Greetings All,

Dave Montoya from LANL. Met with Jay at SOS20 and working with Sandia and Livermore labs on various aspects of workflows.

Dave

From: <science-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Science Industry Working Group <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 8:31 AM
To: Science Industry Working Group <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [science-iwg] Workflows, workflows and more workflows

Everyone,

I wanted to let you know that we have a lot of new colleagues on the list from various institutions that are interested in studying issues and developing solutions around Scientific Workflows. A group of us met recently at the SOS20 conference (http://www.csm.ornl.gov/SOS20/) and had two great sessions on Workflows.

We have since decided that the best venue for these on-going discussions is the Science Working Group. I'm very excited by that. I wanted to send this email and copy my previous email to the SOS20 crowd to get the discussion going. Hopefully some of them will speak up and introduce themselves!

Best,

Jay

-----

Everyone,

It was great to meet you at SOS20! 

I promised to follow up by email to keep our conversation going, and to help nucleate a community around workflow management issues common in scientific computing and commensurate with our shared interest in HPC. We should consider what we want this discussion and community to be about. I propose that in addition to normal collaboration (coding, research, etc.) we help each other with general questions, share experience, help communicate domain science needs, and to engage others in the workflow community. It would be especially good to engage members of project teams for other workflow engines such as Pegasus, Fireworks, Galaxy, Taverna, etc.

One of the things we wanted to figure out was whether or not we should pursue our discussion as part of the Science Working Group, which is managed by the Eclipse Foundation, or if we should start something on our own. My personal recommendation is to do this as part of the Science Working Group because we already have a mailing list, community forum, and other infrastructure. Please write back and let me know how you feel. 

I also have five action items from the end of our BOF in addition to sending out this email. These are only what I heard, so please feel free to add to the list. They include:

1.) Figuring out if there is an opportunity for Aiida to work with other workflow engines.

2.) Learning more about Robert Clay's Scientific Data Management Proposal.

3.) Planning or attending workshops to help build community. (Robert is working on a couple already).

4.) Figuring out how to connect the Systems and Workflow communities.

5.) Start a Google Doc for discussing Provenance models. (I'll get to it.)

Looking forward to working with you,

Jay

--

Jay Jay Billings

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings