Re: skeleton of the implementation report

Hi Paul, Stephan, and Dong,


Thanks for drafting this.  A few comments/suggestions:

- indicate if a feature is consumed or generated by an implementation

- for implementers, what is the evidence that they need to provide?
   Should they submit some provenance trace for instance?

-I am not sure about what is being asked in "Other Elments".

- for attributes, we should have a break down:
prov:label,
prov:location,
prov:role,
prov:type,
prov:value
+ other non-prov attributes

- section 4: I would simply say implementation and not validator here.

-section 5:
   It should also be organized by feature: for each feature, identify 
the pair of implementations exchanging that feature.

- Regarding a test suite, as we develop validators we can build examples 
of valid/invalid graphs.

Luc



On 09/11/2012 07:19 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks to Dong for putting together the skeleton of the implementation
> report with input from Stephan and myself.
>
> You can find the skeleton here:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html
>
> Please let us know what you think.
>
> For discussion, we were wondering if we needed/wanted test cases for
> the constraints. This is a serious amount of effort so we should
> consider how it should look. There was some discussion last week but
> we'd like to pick that up here and making a firm decision on that
> soon.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 14:05:22 UTC