W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Update on implementations of prov

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:25:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jh2KxgHGSWHhn3MV7pJFm+MjT6P85sBrZKX=o+orRKdpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

I apologize for a late submission, we don't have a web site yet, but I
just submitted a survey entry for our implementation.

Cheers,

Eric

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've gone through the implementation surveys and seen where we were with
> respect to our CR exit criteria.
>
> - We have implementations reported from 8 different organizations.
>
> - When reading the implementation report it's important to recognize that
> southampton has reported 7 different implementations.
>
> - For PROV-O we have met the first part of the exit criteria that all
> constructs are supported by at least two independent implementations
> (ProvToolbox, PROVoKing)
>
> - For PROV-O we still need one pair of implementations to exchange
> provenance information for all constructs.
>
> - For PROV-N we only have two organizations that report supporting PROV-N
> (Southampton, and WebLab-PROV). However, weblab prov does not support many
> constructs and I'm not clear if WebLab does indeed support prov-n .
>
> - For PROV-Constraints, we only have one implementation reported that passes
> all tests.
>
> We'll discuss how to address the gaps today on the call.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:26:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:27 UTC