In recent years the need to simplify or to hide sensitive information in
provenance has given way to research on provenance abstraction. In the context
of scientific workflows, existing research provides techniques to semi
automatically create abstractions of a given workflow description, which is in
turn used as filters over the workflow's provenance traces. An alternative
approach that is commonly adopted by scientists is to build workflows with
abstractions embedded into the workflow's design, such as using sub-workflows.
This paper reports on the comparison of manual versus semi-automated approaches
in a context where result abstractions are used to filter report-worthy results
of computational scientific analyses. Specifically; we take a real-world
workflow containing user-created design abstractions and compare these with
abstractions created by ZOOM UserViews and Workflow Summaries systems. Our
comparison shows that semi-automatic and manual approaches largely overlap from
a process perspective, meanwhile, there is a dramatic mismatch in terms of data
artefacts retained in an abstracted account of derivation. We discuss reasons
and suggest future research directions.Comment: Preprint accepted to the 2016 workshop on the Theory and Applications
of Provenance, TAPP 201
