From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

PR Transition Request 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



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


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

Proposed publication date:

March 12th, 2013


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

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:

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 (see
  • 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.

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 (

For a full listing of implementations see the CR Implementation Report at:

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

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:

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

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:

  • CR Phase

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.


None raised

Patent disclosures


Luc Moreau, on behalf of the Provenance Working Group