Difference between revisions of "MeetingProvCRExitCriteria"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "=Introduction= Here we enumerate how the exit criteria defined by the working group were met based on the implementation report. 1. PROV-O * Each feature of PROV-O is demonstr…")
 
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
* For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.
 
* For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.
  * The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (Consumes) all PROV-O terms generated by PROVoKing (King's College London)
+
** The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (Consumes) all PROV-O terms generated by PROVoKing (King's College London)
  * The prov-check (VU University of Amsterdam) validates all PROV-O terms converted by the ProvToolbox (University of Southampton)
+
** The prov-check (VU University of Amsterdam) validates all PROV-O terms converted by the ProvToolbox (University of Southampton)
  
 
2. PROV-N
 
2. PROV-N

Revision as of 10:04, 19 February 2013

Introduction

Here we enumerate how the exit criteria defined by the working group were met based on the implementation report.


1. PROV-O

  • Each feature of PROV-O is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.


  • For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.
    • The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (Consumes) all PROV-O terms generated by PROVoKing (King's College London)
    • The prov-check (VU University of Amsterdam) validates all PROV-O terms converted by the ProvToolbox (University of Southampton)

2. PROV-N

  • Each feature of PROV-N is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.
  • For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.

3. PROV-DM

  • PROV-O and PROV-N have satisfied their exit criteria

4. PROV-Constraints