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

Re: [sdw] ssn implementations need for rec track/standard

From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:15:55 -0400
Message-Id: <36530593-D324-43B4-B56D-3A1771C79A3B@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
To: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Although to be fair, evidence of multiple implementations is “favorably viewed” in the context of standard adoption.

—Josh

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> 
> 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>
> To: "SDW WG Public List" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Cc: "Scott Simmons" <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 <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 <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/ <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 <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 Thursday, 29 September 2016 03:16:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:26 UTC