- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:44:12 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- CC: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Phil, On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:21 AM, Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] wrote: [...] > Implementation Reports for SSN and OWL Time > =========================================== > > If SSN and OWL Time are to become Recs/standards we must gather evidence > of implementation. Although not formally required for the other > documents, it adds weight to them if we can do it. I know the SSN group > has this front and centre of their minds, I'm more concerned about OWL > Time. If we don't have the capacity to identify and document uses of the > vocab, it will have to be a Note. Even then, we need to close off the > currently open issues. > > To reach Rec by the end of June, we need to have gather that > implementation evidence by mid-May the very latest (Proposed Rec) which > means we need to be into Candidate Rec immediately after the March F2F > in Delft, i.e. *all* issues closed, document stable and complete, ready > for implementation. No normative changes can be made after this (or you > have to re-run the CR phase). I'd _love_ to model some of the temporal aspects of our authority data using OWL Time and then use that to define classes like RenaissancePerson (a Person born or active during the C15 and C16 expressed as an owl:Restriction on a foaf:Person). However, given the release cycles we have here in the DNB there is absolutely no chance I can have that published before September. Is it absolutely necessary that it goes to Proposed Rec during the WG's lifetime? Best, Lars
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2016 16:44:52 UTC