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.
Decision support
Compare standards by the job they do
Place up to three profiles side by side. Focus on architectural role, evidence, and the first limitation to test—not on finding a single all-purpose standard.
Working set
Choose profiles
1 of 3 selected
PROV-OOntology / data model
Decision lens
Compare roles before you compare maturity.
The useful question is not “Which standard wins?” It is “Which job must this part of the architecture perform, and what remains uncovered?”
- Start with the job
Decide whether you need guidance, a domain payload, exchange, semantics, governance, or a reusable release.
- Map lifecycle reach
Use the matrix to see where each profile has a direct role. A filled cell is coverage, not a quality score.
- Test the boundary
Read what each option leaves unresolved before judging maturity, confidence, or implementation fit.
Three-part assessment
See the reach, the gaps, and the evidence.
Read left to right. Lifecycle reach comes first; maturity remains an editorial roll-up, not certification.
01 · Lifecycle reach
Where each profile contributes directly
Coverage shows a recorded role at that readiness stage. It does not imply end-to-end implementation.
| Profile | Plan | Acquire | Harmonize | Exchange | Learn + reuse |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROV-OOntology / data model | W3C 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
02 · Boundaries
What each option does not cover
These are design boundaries, not faults. Use them to identify the companion layers your architecture still needs.
03 · Detailed assessment
Check the fit and evidence behind the map
Use the source, status, and limitation together. A higher maturity label does not erase a scope mismatch.
| Assessment | PROV-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 contribution | Supports dataset and feature lineage, reproducibility, and audit, but does not define ML-specific quality or responsible-use metadata by itself. |
| First limitation to test | The model is intentionally generic; useful provenance requires a scoped profile, identifier policy, and capture instrumentation. |
| Evidence | E1 + E2 High confidence Formal statusW3C Recommendation ReviewSource-checked |
| Maturity | Established Stable W3C Recommendation |
| Sources & links | W3C PROV-O Recommendation (opens in a new tab)Read full profile |