Difference between revisions of "PRTransitionRequest"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Evidence for Wide Review)
(Evidence for Wide Review)
Line 151: Line 151:
  
 
We note that there was significant technical review at the last call stage  and have had minor clarifications during call for implementation period (See the next section).
 
We note that there was significant technical review at the last call stage  and have had minor clarifications during call for implementation period (See the next section).
 +
 +
The group defined a series of concrete exit criteria, which can be found at:
 +
 +
* http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
 +
 +
A point-by-point discussion of how these exit criteria have been met can be found at:
 +
 +
* http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/MeetingProvCRExitCriteria
  
 
==Evidence that issues have been formally addressed==
 
==Evidence that issues have been formally addressed==

Revision as of 11:47, 21 February 2013

Template for PR Transition Request to Edit for PROV

The Provenance Working Group requests that the PROV-O, PROV-DM, PROV-N, and PROV-CONSTRAINTS specifications are transitioned to the Proposed Recommendation stage of the W3C Process. The Candidate Recommendation period ended on 31 January 2013. The group believes that it has already fulfilled the CR exit criteria.

Document Titles

  • PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
  • PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
  • PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
  • Constraints of the PROV Data Model

URLs


Abstracts

The abstracts for the documents can be found at the following URLs:


Status

The status sections for each document can be found at the following URLs:


Proposed publication date:

March 12th, 2013

Records

Decision to request the transition was made on February 21 2013:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-21#resolution


Significant Changes Since Previous Publication

All comments received during the Candidate Recommendation phase were logged and answered here:


All changes made were editorial:


Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements

There was no specific use case and requirement document produced by this working group. Instead, the main input documents for the group were the outcome of the Provenance Incubator group:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings

these were the starting points for the technical design. More specifically, the Group's charter refers to "see Section 8.1.4 of the Incubator Group report" explicitly and says: "the Incubator Group has identified a set of concepts that will constitute the core of PIL".

All those concepts were implemented, except for participation and control that are now prov:Assocation.


Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met

At the time of Last Call, a review was requested specifically from the following groups: Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDFa Working Group, RDF Working Group, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group, Oil and Gas Business Group, DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group and the Internationalization Activity.

  • The RDFa WG will include PROV in their initial context, and the ways of using RDFa for the encoding of Provenance discover (subject of a separate note) has also been discussed.
  • The RDF working group approved our approach (eg, on the usage of bundles) and will use provenance examples in their specification (seehttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html).
  • The Oil and Gas Business Group does not exist any more; however, while it still existed, there were several informal discussions with members of that BG.


These specifications have no outstanding normative dependency requirements.

Evidence for Wide Review

There are over 60 implementations that report to be compatible with the PROV specifications. There are three fully conformant validators implemented in using three different approaches (Java, SPARQL, Prolog) that pass the 280 test cases defined by the Working Group ( https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/process.html).

For a full listing of implementations see:

Information was gathered using the WBS survey system. Survey results can be found at:


We note that there was significant technical review at the last call stage and have had minor clarifications during call for implementation period (See the next section).

The group defined a series of concrete exit criteria, which can be found at:

A point-by-point discussion of how these exit criteria have been met can be found at:

Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

Over the lifetime of the group, over 600 issues were addressed, there were over 80 issues reported to the public-comments mailing list, mostly from individuals and companies outside of the Workign Group. They were all discussed and resolved by the Working Group.

  • Last call phase:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments

  • CR Phase

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR


The Working Group believes that comments from the public, as well as the private sector, were taken into account and addressed in a way that is fitting with the W3C Process.

Implementation Information

The implementation report for the CR phase can be found here:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/WD-prov-implementations-20130312/Overview.html

Objections

None raised

Patent disclosures

None

Luc Moreau, on behalf of the Provenance Working Group