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

Re: Update on implementations of prov

From: Pignotti, E. <e.pignotti@abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:36:39 +0000
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9BFD3712-340F-4853-B246-573D0E076DE0@abdn.ac.uk>
Hello Paul,
We are in the process of collecting and documenting provenance implementations in Aberdeen. We will make few submissions later next week.

Thanks,

Edoardo


On 17 Jan 2013, at 14:01, 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
>
>
>



The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:37:07 UTC

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