From Provenance WG Wiki

Revision as of 10:06, 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

1a. Each feature of PROV-O is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.

1b. 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.
  • The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) all PROV-N terms generated by the Provenance Server and the PROV-Python library (University of Southampton, Python code base)
  • The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) some PROV-N terms generated by APROVeD (Ghent University)
  • The ProvValidator (University of Southampton) validates (consumes) all PROV-N terms from the examples in the PROV-DM document (Provenance Working Group)

3. PROV-DM

• PROV-O and PROV-N have satisfied their exit criteria
  • Met because PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 2.b were all me

4. PROV-Constraints

• For each of the test cases defined by the working group, at least two independent implementations pass the tests and claim to conform to the document.
• Draft test process: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/process.html