MeetingProvCRExitCriteria
From Provenance WG Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
| 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== |
| - | + | 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 | + | ** 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. | ||
| - | * | + | ** 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
Contents |
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.
