W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > October 2016

[sdw] ssn implementations need for rec track/standard

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:21:09 +0000
To: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PS1PR06MB17404FB00F9839EC05E78CDBA4DA0@PS1PR06MB1740.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Reposting to public list as it was raised in ssn  meeting today and seems to have been missed.  Includes a call for a volunteer to do some forensic work.

From: Scott Simmons [mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org]
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016 1:09 PM
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [sdw] ssn implementations need for rec track/standard

Kerry,

No evidence of implementation is required for an OGC standard. We do have a standards track that includes a "standard with compliance suite" that is more mature than a "standard," but that requires an OGC maintained compliance test suite in addition to reference implementations.

Best regards,
Scott

________________________________
From: "Kerry Taylor" <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>
To: "SDW WG Public List" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Cc: "Scott Simmons" <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org<mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:40:04 AM
Subject: [sdw] ssn implementations need for rec track/standard

As discussed at the Lisbon F2F and again at  in the ssn meeting this morning (or yesterday for many, see minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-sdwssn-minutes),
we require proof of implementations for  W3C Rec track deliverables.  This is defined in the W3C process here https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-advance.


Phila  has advised that there is no more formal definition of what an implementation means for a vocabulary deliverable. However, he points us to these two  successful precedents


(1)     The implementation report for Prov is at https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-implementations-20130430/ - and is very impressive. It's more than is required but they had a whole stack to prove, we just have a vocabulary.



(2) The implementation report for the ORG ontology might be a better example, see https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Implementations.




In my opinion, we can use the latter style. I know for the former this was put together through a survey call (I was one of the implementation contributors). In our case I expect we would be smarter to do an analysis ourselves of public material, starting now, and then work harder to source (through a survey or through explicit soliciting for implementations) for the rest – ie anything that we cannot find in the published material plus anything we might add to ssn here. I suggest this strategy because I believe we can get a very long way, faster, sooner, by analysing public material (and this could save us a lot of time at the CandidateRec ->  Rec stage later on) .  However, *if* we agree with this approach, we also need a volunteer to take on the task. This might be a particularly attractive task to someone fairly new to ssn who wants to see how it is used.



Is this a reasonable approach? Will you volunteer?

@Scott – by this asking kindly whether there may be some OGC principles  for implementation of  standards  that we additionally need to satisfy.

--Kerry




Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:21:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:21:44 UTC