[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