- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:48:07 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Simon asked me what the WG has to do to get an ontology through the W3C process, specifically, what counts as an implementation. Essentially the Candidate Recommendation stage is there to provide evidence that what has been specified actually works, as proved by (at least two) two independent implementations (I heard here in Barcelona that the equivalent rule at OGC is three implementations?) There are three recent vocabularies that provide examples of the kind of thing we're looking for. Like all Recs, these three vocabs all link to their implementation reports: DCAT http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat ORG http://www.w3.org/vocab-org Data Cube http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Implementations For ORG and Data Cube, Dave Reynolds created a validator tool, see http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Validator, which was used in the implementation reports. The reports gather evidence that the vocabularies are being used, ideally in real world scenarios, which elements are being used in each case etc so that you can check that each of the terms has been used at least twice. It's a high bar, but that's what we're aiming for wrt OWL Time, SSN and Coverage in LD. HTH Phil. -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 09:48:08 UTC