Decision support

Compare standards by the job they do

Place up to three profiles side by side. Compare their architectural role, lifecycle reach, and first limitation to test. No single standard covers every layer.

Choose profiles

1 of 3 selected

PROV-OOntology / data model

Compare roles before choosing an implementation.

The useful question is not “Which standard wins?” It is “Which job must this part of the architecture perform, and what remains uncovered?”

  1. Start with the job

    Decide whether you need guidance, a domain payload, exchange, semantics, governance, or a reusable release.

  2. Map lifecycle reach

    Use the matrix to see where each profile has a direct role. A filled cell is coverage, not a quality score.

  3. Test the boundary

    Read what each option leaves unresolved before judging maturity or implementation fit.

Review lifecycle coverage and practical fit.

Read left to right. Lifecycle reach comes first; a maturity label never overrides a scope mismatch.

Where each profile contributes directly

Coverage shows a recorded role at that readiness stage. It does not imply end-to-end implementation.

Readiness-stage coverage for W3C PROV-O
ProfilePlanAcquireHarmonizeExchangeLearn + reuse
PROV-OOntology / data modelW3C PROV-O has no direct role recorded in Plan.W3C PROV-O has a direct role in Acquire.W3C PROV-O has a direct role in Harmonize.W3C PROV-O has a direct role in Exchange.W3C PROV-O has a direct role in Learn + reuse.
Direct role recordedNo direct role recorded

What each option does not cover

These are design boundaries, not faults. Use them to identify the companion layers your architecture still needs.

PROV-O

Stage boundary
No direct role is recorded for Plan.
Known limitation
The model is intentionally generic; useful provenance requires a scoped profile, identifier policy, and capture instrumentation.

Check the fit and source behind the map

Use the official source, version, and limitation together. A higher maturity label does not erase a scope mismatch.

Detailed comparison of W3C PROV-O
AssessmentPROV-OW3C PROV-O
Purpose & coverage

An OWL 2 ontology for interoperable provenance using entities, activities, agents, and qualified relationships.

Best fitCross-system lineage, transformation history, audit evidence, and knowledge-graph provenance.

Readiness stages
AcquireHarmonizeExchangeLearn + reuse
AI-ready contributionSupports dataset and feature lineage, reproducibility, and audit, but does not define ML-specific quality or responsible-use metadata by itself.
First limitation to testThe model is intentionally generic; useful provenance requires a scoped profile, identifier policy, and capture instrumentation.
Maturity

Established

Stable W3C Recommendation

Sources & links