Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
PRTransitionRequest
Contents
- 1 PR Transition Request for PROV
- 1.1 Document Titles
- 1.2 URLs
- 1.3 Abstracts
- 1.4 Status
- 1.5 Proposed publication date:
- 1.6 Records
- 1.7 Significant Changes Since Previous Publication
- 1.8 Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements
- 1.9 Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met
- 1.10 Evidence for Wide Review
- 1.11 Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- 1.12 Objections
- 1.13 Patent disclosures
PR Transition Request for PROV
The Provenance Working Group requests that the PROV-O, PROV-DM, PROV-N, and PROV-CONSTRAINTS specifications are transitioned to the Proposed Recommendation stage of the W3C Process. The Candidate Recommendation period ended on 31 January 2013. The group believes that it has already fulfilled the CR exit criteria.
Document Titles
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
- PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
- PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
- Constraints of the PROV Data Model
URLs
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
- PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
- PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
- Constraints of the PROV Data Model
Abstracts
The abstracts for the documents can be found at the following URLs:
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
- PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
- PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
- Constraints of the PROV Data Model
Status
The status sections for each document can be found at the following URLs:
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
- PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
- PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
- Constraints of the PROV Data Model
Proposed publication date:
March 12th, 2013
Records
Decision to request the transition was made on February 21 2013:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-02-21#resolution_2
Significant Changes Since Previous Publication
All comments received during the Candidate Recommendation phase were logged and answered here:
- Public comments archive:
- Responses to public comments (with the references to the corresponding ISSUE-s in the tracker)
All changes made were editorial:
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
- PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model
- PROV-N: The Provenance Notation
- Constraints of the PROV Data Model
Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements
There was no specific use case and requirement document produced by this working group. Instead, the main input documents for the group were the outcome of the Provenance Incubator group:
- Final Report in particular Provenance in the Web Architecture and the Provenance Concepts in the recommendations section.
- Provenance Vocabulary Mappings
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings
these were the starting points for the technical design. More specifically, the Group's charter refers to "see Section 8.1.4 of the Incubator Group report" explicitly and says: "the Incubator Group has identified a set of concepts that will constitute the core of PIL".
All those concepts were implemented, except for participation and control that are now prov:Assocation.
Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met
At the time of Last Call, a review was requested specifically from the following groups: Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDFa Working Group, RDF Working Group, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group, Oil and Gas Business Group, DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group and the Internationalization Activity.
- The RDFa WG will include PROV in their initial context, and the ways of using RDFa for the encoding of Provenance discover (subject of a separate note) has also been discussed.
- The RDF working group approved our approach (eg, on the usage of bundles) and will use provenance examples in their specification (seehttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html).
- The Internationalization Activity was notified and asked for review, but we have not received a response although we were listed on the Activity's review radar
- We have had close collaboration with DCMI creating a note on mappings of Dublin Core to the PROV. This is being published as a note alongside the final Recommendations of PROV http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dc-20121211/
- The Oil and Gas Business Group does not exist any more; however, while it still existed, there were several informal discussions with members of that BG.
Evidence for Wide Review
There are over 60 implementations that report to be compatible with the PROV specifications. There are three fully conformant validators implemented in using three different approaches (Java, SPARQL, Prolog) that pass the 280 test cases defined by the Working Group ( https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/process.html).
For a full listing of implementations see the CR Implementation Report at:
- Staged: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/WD-prov-implementations-20130312/Overview.html
- Final: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-implementations-20130312/
Information was gathered using the WBS survey system. Survey results can be found at:
- Implementations in software (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/prov-implementation-survey/results)
- Usage in datasets or the web (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/prov-vocabulary-usage-survey/results)
- Extensions of the PROV vocabulary (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/prov-vocabulary-survey/results)
- Implementations of PROV-Constraints (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/prov-constraints/results)
The group defined a series of concrete exit criteria, which can be found at:
A point-by-point discussion of how these exit criteria have been met can be found at:
We note that there was significant technical review at the last call stage and there were only minor clarifications necessary during the call for implementation period (See the next section).
Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
Over the lifetime of the group, over 600 issues were addressed, there were over 80 issues reported to the public-comments mailing list, mostly from individuals and companies outside of the Workign Group. They were all discussed and resolved by the Working Group.
- Last call phase:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
- CR Phase
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
The Working Group believes that comments from the public, as well as the
private sector, were taken into account and addressed in a way that is
fitting with the W3C Process.
Objections
None raised
Patent disclosures
None
Luc Moreau, on behalf of the Provenance Working Group