Difference between revisions of "MeetingProvCRExitCriteria"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
1a. Each feature of PROV-O is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.   
 
1a. Each feature of PROV-O is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.   
 +
** Prov Toolbox (University of Southampton) and PROVoKing (King's College London) support all features.
 +
** A total of 40 implementations support some set of PROV-O features.
  
 
1b. For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.
 
1b. For each feature, one interoperability pair will have been demonstrated to exist.
Line 11: Line 13:
 
** 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==
* Each feature of PROV-N is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.   
+
2a 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  PROV-Python library (University of Southampton) and PROV-DM document (Provenance Working Group) support all constructs
 +
** A total of 7 implementations support some set of PROV-N features.
 +
 
 +
2b 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) 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)  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)
 
** 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
+
==3. PROV-DM==
 
* PROV-O and PROV-N have satisfied their exit criteria
 
* 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
+
**  Met because PROV CR Exit Criteria 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 2.b were all met
  
4. PROV-Constraints
+
==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.
 
* 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
+
** ProvValidator (University of Southampton), prov-check (VU University Amsterdam) and checker.pl (University of Edinburgh) pass all test and claim conformance.

Revision as of 10:20, 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.

    • Prov Toolbox (University of Southampton) and PROVoKing (King's College London) support all features.
    • A total of 40 implementations support some set of PROV-O features.

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

2a Each feature of PROV-N is demonstrated to be supported by at least two independent implementations.

    • The PROV-Python library (University of Southampton) and PROV-DM document (Provenance Working Group) support all constructs
    • A total of 7 implementations support some set of PROV-N features.

2b 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 met

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.
    • ProvValidator (University of Southampton), prov-check (VU University Amsterdam) and checker.pl (University of Edinburgh) pass all test and claim conformance.