added some explanation
authorPaul Groth <>
Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:30:46 +0100
changeset 5478 2e03f5852bfd
parent 5477 6644ac2782f3
child 5479 158512454441
added some explanation
--- a/reports/prov-implementations.html	Tue Feb 05 17:23:18 2013 +0100
+++ b/reports/prov-implementations.html	Tue Feb 05 18:30:46 2013 +0100
@@ -79,17 +79,43 @@
   <body xmlns:prov=""> 
     <section id="abstract">
-      <p>This document summarises implementation experience reported to the Provenance Working Group.</p>
+      <p>This document reports on implementations and usage of the PROV Family of Documents [[PROV-OVERVIEW]]. In particular, it's aim is to demonstrate that the features defined in PROV are implementable and interoperable. Features are defined as: the constructs specified in [[PROV-DM]] and their realisation in OWL (see [[PROV-O]]) and in the [[PROV-N]] syntax; the constraints defined within [[PROV-CONSTRAINTS]]. Interoperability is defined through both the interchange of provenance information and the coverage of test cases.     </p>
 	<section id="sotd">
-      <b>Editors' working copy can change at any time. </b>
+      During the Candidate Recommendation period of PROV, implementation experience was reported. This document summarises those experiences. 
+For comments, please send a mail to <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> [<a href="">archive</a>].
+    <section id="Introduction">
+    <h2>Introduction</h2>
+    The goal of PROV is to enable interoperable interchange of provenance on the Web. We take two approaches to documenting the implementation and interoperability of PROV. 
+    <ol>
+    <li> For the data model [[PROV-DM]] and the two working group defined serializations, we document that there are multiple implementations that support each of the constructs defined by the data model and that there are at least two implementations that are reported to exchange these constructs. </li>
+    <li> We document that the PROV-Constraints specification is implementable. To evaluate the coverage of implementations, the <a href="">PROV-Constraints Test Cases</a> are used as a point of reference. There are 280 test cases in total, which map to the the constraints defined by the document. </li>
+    </ol>
+PROV is useful not only for applications/programs but also for exposing provenance within dataset and as a foundation for other vocabularies. We also document that usage as well. 
+Implementation evidence was gathered using four surveys. 
+<li><a href="">Implementations in software</a></li>
+<li><a href="">Usage in datasets or the web</a></li>
+<li><a href="">Extensions of the PROV vocabulary</a></li>
+<li><a href="">Implementations of PROV-Constraints</a></li>
+This report summarises the results of these surveys.
+    </section>
     <section id="implementations">
-      <p>Implementation Type:
+      The following lists the reported implementations, the type of implementation, supported PROV encodings and the URL of the implementation. 
+         <p>Implementation Type:
-            <li>Application:</li>
+            <li>Application</li>
@@ -128,7 +154,7 @@
     <p>This section enumerates the PROV-DM terms [[PROV-DM]] that are consumed (<img src="consume.png" width="27" height="16" alt="Consume Icon" />),
     produced (<img src="produce.png" width="27" height="16" alt="Produce Icon" />),
     or both consumed and produced (<img src="conprod.png" width="27" height="16" alt="Consume and Produce Icon" />)
-    by a particular implementation.</p>
+    by a particular implementation.</p> Hover, over the numbers to see the implementation name.
     <table class="feature-table">
       <caption id="prov-terms-table">Table 2: Coverage of PROV-DM terms in implementations of type Application, Framework / API, or Service.</caption>