W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: What is an implementation of an ontology?

From: Scott Serich <sserich@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 06:07:30 -0400
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D126DD64.9F36%sserich@opengeospatial.org>
Typo: ORG link should (I think) be http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/.

Scott Serich, Ph.D., JD
Director, Interoperability Programs, Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
+1 (703) 283-3432
Skype: scott.serich.ogc
The OGC: Making Location Count.

From:  Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date:  Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 5:48 AM
To:  SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  What is an implementation of an ontology?
Resent-From:  <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:48:09 +0000

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


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.




Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 10:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC