MeetingProvCRExitCriteria

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 10:06, 19 February 2013 by Pgroth (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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