Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15)

Hi Paul,

Looks good! I have two minor suggestions:

The texts '...an implementation from a different institution that exchanges
some constructs' and 'Some PROV-N terms generated by APROVeD (Ghent
University)' suggest that we implement the entire spec, but only exchange
part of it. I'd like the following better:

'... an implementation from a different institution that exchanges the
subset of the constructs it supports'

And

' The subset of PROV-N terms generated by APROVeD (Ghent University)'

Or something along those lines.

Thanks!

Tom
On Feb 11, 2013 4:41 PM, "Paul Groth" <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> You can find a draft of our implementation report at:
>
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html
>
> A couple of notes:
> - Please let us know what you think.
> - Comments due by Fri Feb 15 so that we can process the comments in-time
> - Thanks to Tim & Stephan for their usability comments.
> - We will run the scripts again next week. So please if you have any more
> implementations or datasets that use PROV, or know of anybody who does,
> tell them there's still time to fill one of the surveys in. Given that we
> will add the acknowledgements next week.
>
> Finally, thanks to Dong who did a brilliant job of generating the tables
> within the report.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> P.S. We now have more reported implementations (at time of report) than
> SKOS, OWL2, SPARQL, RIF, RDFa, and RDF :-)
>
>
>