added a section on exit criteria and renamed section titles. I also made it an editor's draft
authorPaul Groth <>
Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:28:37 +0100
changeset 5528 4bf4e24f5e71
parent 5527 f964b5c5e6af
child 5529 32f65d635e65
added a section on exit criteria and renamed section titles. I also made it an editor's draft
--- a/reports/prov-implementations.html	Mon Feb 11 12:50:02 2013 +0000
+++ b/reports/prov-implementations.html	Mon Feb 11 22:28:37 2013 +0100
@@ -2,12 +2,13 @@
     <title>PROV Implementation Report</title> 
-    <script src="" class="remove"></script>
+    <script src="" class="remove" async></script> 
     <script src="../model/provbib.js" class="remove"></script>
     <script class="remove"> 
       var respecConfig = {
           // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
-          specStatus:           "unofficial",
+          specStatus:           "ED",
           // the specification's short name, as in
           shortName:            "prov-implementations",
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@
               { name: "Trung Dong Huynh", url: "",
                 company: "University of Southampton" },
 			  { name: "Paul Groth", url: "",
-                company: "VU University of Amsterdam" },
+                company: "VU University Amsterdam" },
 			  { name: "Stephan Zednik", url: "",
                 company: "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" },
@@ -97,6 +98,7 @@
 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. 
+<section id="surverys">
 Implementation evidence was gathered using four surveys. 
@@ -105,12 +107,28 @@
 <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.
+This report summarises the results of these surveys. 
+<section id="Exit-Criteria">
+<h2> Meeting the Exit Criteria</h2>
+At the start of the Candidate Recommendation phase, the Working Group defined <a href="">a series of exit criteria</a>. These exit criteria can be summarized as for each feature defined by PROV there are at least two implementations that support the feature and that there exists one interoperability pair that can exchange that feature. Section <a href="#prov-terms">3.1</a> shows that a minimum of 4 implementations produce and consume all constructs defined in PROV-DM. PROV-O is implemented by over 40 implementations and PROV-N is implemented by 7 implementations. 
+In terms of implementation pairs, Section <a href="#prov-exchange">4</a> enumerates which pairs of implementations report exchanging provenance. Here, we meet the exit criteria in that each feature is exchanged by two implementations. For PROV-O, the implementations are from two separate institutions. For PROV-N, there are implementations in different programming languages from the same institution which exchange all constructs and an implementation from a different institution that exchanges some constructs. We believe, however, that this meets the goals of the exit criteria to demonstrate interoperability. 
+Finally, three validators have implemented all of the constraints defined in PROV-Constraints passing the requisite test cases, thus, passing the exit criteria. The implementations are in Java, Prolog and SPARQL.
     <section id="implementations">
-      <h2>Implementations</h2>
+      <h2>List of Implementations</h2>
       The following lists the reported implementations, the type of implementation, supported PROV encodings and the URL of the implementation. 
       <p>Implementation Type:
@@ -458,12 +476,15 @@
+<section id="Feature-Coverage">
+<h2> Feature Coverage</h2>
   <section id="prov-terms">
-    <h2>PROV Language Implementation</h2>
+    <h2>PROV Usage </h2>
     <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="consume-produce.png" width="27" height="16" alt="Consume and Produce Icon" />)
-    by a particular implementation.</p> Hover, over the numbers to see the implementation name.
+    by a particular implementation.</p> Hover over the numbers to see the implementation name.
     <table class="simple feature-table">
       <caption id="prov-terms-table">Table 2: Coverage of PROV-DM terms in implementations of type Application, Framework / API, or Service.</caption>
@@ -1879,7 +1900,7 @@
   <section id="prov-extensions">
-    <h2>PROV Vocabulary Extension</h2>
+    <h2>PROV Usage by Extension</h2>
     <table class="simple feature-table">
       <caption id="prov-terms-table">Table 3: PROV Terms extended by Vocabularies.</caption>
@@ -2454,9 +2475,9 @@
   <section id="prov-usage">
-    <h2>PROV Vocabulary Usage</h2>
+    <h2>PROV Usage in Datasets</h2>
     <table class="simple feature-table">
-      <caption id="prov-usage-table">Table 4: PROV Terms used by Vocabularies.</caption>
+      <caption id="prov-usage-table">Table 4: PROV Terms used by Datasets and Vocabularies.</caption>
         <th scope="col">PROV Component</th>
         <th scope="col">Term</th>
@@ -2784,10 +2805,10 @@
   <section id="prov-contraints">
-      <h2>PROV Constraint Implementation</h2>
+      <h2>PROV Constraints Implementation</h2>
     <table class="simple feature-table">
         <caption id="prov-contraints-table">
-        Table 5: PROV Definitions, Inferences, and Contraints [[PROV-CONSTRAINTS]] implemented by Validators.
+        Table 5: PROV Contraints [[PROV-CONSTRAINTS]] implemented by validators or other software
           <th scope="col">Constraint</th>
@@ -3012,7 +3033,7 @@
       test cases</a> submitted by implementers.</p>
+  </section>
     <section id="prov-exchange">
       <h2>Implementations Exchanging Provenance</h2>
       <table id="exchange-table" class="simple">