Re: OWL-Time ready to go - except for styling issues?

Thanks Francois. 

As you note, we were very conservative and marked everything new as 'at risk'. On one hand this is an obvious call since none of the new things have two implementations (yet - working on that today in fact at Geoscience Australia). I was also under the impression that this was in fact your recommendation. 

However, as you note, if all the things that are marked 'at risk' were ripped out of the rec, it would be a much slimmer document, and the Principles and Overview section would need to be re-written and the diagrams re-drawn. So perhaps I went too far. 

Backing right off, new elements that were included quite late and have been less tested are

:hasXSDDuration

which was added in response to a comment received in wide review 

:MonthOfYear
:monthOfYear

which were included in response to a request from the QB4ST group, and 

:hasTime

was a response to a frequently mentioned need for 'generic predicates, but has not been exercised much

All the rest of the new stuff follows logically from the main requirement - to generalize the treatment of temporal reference systems. And even if the corpus of evidence of external use is small, it is not zero. Furthermore, a solid argument can be made that dropping any would compromise the integrity of the parts for which we do have evidence of use. 

I will wind back the FAR labelling to just these elements. OK? 

Simon 

Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Land and Water
CSIRO
E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
   Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
   Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
   Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3

________________________________________
From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, 28 April 2017 12:32 AM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; phila@w3.org
Subject: RE: OWL-Time ready to go - except for styling issues?

Hi Simon,

> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:30 PM
>
> OK - fixed those nits. Now just waiting for Francois' comment on how I
> marked the Features At Risk.

Hmm, you seem to have marked all features introduced in this version of the spec and that were not in the old 2006 version as being at risk. This strikes me as strange. Here, we're talking about 50% of the classes and roughly 25% of the properties. That seems a lot. It means you would be ready to publish a Proposed Recommendation that would be vastly different from the current draft in that most of its normative content could be removed. Don't we have a clearer understanding of the new classes and properties that people are effectively starting to use?

Features at risk are usually advanced features in a specification which, when dropped, do not affect the whole spec. The Time Ontology without "TemporalDuration" and/or "TemporalPosition" seems a completely different spec to me. Note I do not know whether the Director would feel the same, it may be ok. It's just that I was rather only expecting a couple of properties to be flagged as at risk, at most.

Francois

>
> Simon J D Cox
> Research Scientist
> Land and Water
> CSIRO
> E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
>    Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
>    Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>    Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2017 1:04 AM
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); fd@w3.org
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; phila@w3.org
> Subject: RE: OWL-Time ready to go - except for styling issues?
>
> Simon, Francois
>
> Thank you for all the hard work while I disappeared for a family holiday. The
> document now feels concise, substantial and rigorous!
>
> A. I have now read closely the Editors' Draft dated 25 April and found only 4
> very minor typos which hopefully Francois can fix, and not really a big deal if
> cannot:
>
> 4.2.15 has XSD duration: definition repeats 'xsd:duration' as both plain text
> and as a link. I suggest that the plain text is deleted.
>
> 4.3 Datatypes: the trailing pipe/vertical bar should be removed (unless a
> software issue).
> 4.4 Individuals: the trailing pipe/vertical bar should be removed (unless a
> software issue).
>
> Annex D 5.39 tempral -> temporal
>
> B. The external links all seem to work, and the dbpedia.org links all work with
> https as well as http, so they could be changed if W3C policy prefers.
>
> C. The UK government links have to stay as http, as https fails 504. A UK
> government issue.
>
> D. All the OGC links fail with https with SSL record too long. Also, the link from
> Example 5.3 (http://www.opengis.net/def/uom/ISO-8601/0/Gregorian) still
> re-directs to the Australian SISSVOC site. These are OGC issues.
>
> HTH, Chris
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:21 AM
> > To: fd@w3.org; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; phila@w3.org
> > Cc: Little, Chris
> > Subject: RE: OWL-Time ready to go - except for styling issues?
> >
> > Thank you Francois
> >
> > I have added a note in the SOTD section about the features at risk.
> > All FAR are indicated clearly in the tabulations.
> > I also added an Exit Criteria appendix.
> >
> > See https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/749
> >
> > Hope this satisfies your concerns.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Friday, 21 April, 2017 16:58
> > To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-
> > wg@w3.org; phila@w3.org
> > Cc: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
> > Subject: Re: OWL-Time ready to go - except for styling issues?
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > Le 21/04/2017 à 07:50, Simon.Cox@csiro.au a écrit :
> > > Colleagues –
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I’ve done the work requested in yesterday’s vote to advance OWL-Time
> > > to the next stage, specifically
> > >
> > > 1.      I added some material in section 1, to address a comment
> > > received during side review, (briefly) positioning OWL-Time relative
> > > to ISO 8601 and XML Schema temporal datatypes – ISSUE-158 ;
> > >
> > > 2.      The list of external implementations has been moved from
> > > ‘Examples’ to a Wiki page
> > > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption
> and
> > > linked from an appendix
> > >
> > > 3.      A summary of the results of the wide review is provided on
> > the
> > > Wiki
> > >
> >
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review#Disposition_of_issues
> > > _raised
> > > and linked from an appendix
> >
> > Many thanks for preparing all of this!
> >
> > Two more things that do not seem to have been discussed during the
> > call:
> >
> > - Possible *features at risk*, meaning classes, properties or sections
> > that are in the spec but that could be dropped from it before
> > publication of a Proposed Recommendation, e.g. because the group cannot
> > provide implementation evidence. If you need to drop features that have
> > not been identified as at risk, you would need to publish another
> > Candidate Recommendation. "No feature at risk" is a good answer in this
> > case, but I just want to make sure that you're aware of it.
> >
> > - *Exit criteria* for the Candidate Recommendation phase. It is good
> > practice to include them in the spec. For instance, see the Web
> > Annotation Vocabulary:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20161122/#candidate-
> > recommendation-exit-criteria
> >
> > I doubt you need something as complex in your case. Essentially, the
> > goal is to tell the Director what you consider will be enough evidence
> > to advance the spec to Proposed Recommendation.
> >
> > Typically, the document you called "OWL Time Ontology adoption" is what
> > I would call an "implementation report":
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption
> >
> > ... and exit criteria could probably be something as loose as "The
> > group expects to request transition to Proposed Recommendation once it
> > has reviewed datasets that have adopted the ontology and completed the
> > implementation report" (with a link to it). This sentence should
> > typically appear in the Status of This Document section.
> >
> > DCAT's implementation report comes to mind for instance:
> > https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations
> >
> >
> > > There are still some issues with styling and ReSpec – in particular,
> > > there are two lists of References – one from the HTML file, the other
> > > a subset of the ones I transferred to the config.js file.
> >
> > I'll fix them as soon as I can and prepare the transition request (I'm
> > traveling though, may take a few days). Some answers below in the
> > meantime.
> >
> > >
> > > (i)                 I don’t know why the ones from config.js aren’t
> > all
> > > showing up – if that could be fixed, the set in the .html document
> > > could be removed
> >
> > The references in config.js only show up provided you reference them
> > from the spec, using "[[REF]]" for an informative reference and
> > "[[!REF]]" for a normative reference.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (ii)               Anyway, the formatting of the ones that are
> > showing
> > > up from config.js is incomplete – no editor names for example
> >
> > I'll check and update as needed.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (iii)             I understand that there is a central database of
> > W3C
> > > documents at least. Since a lot of the citations are to those, it
> > > would be better to enable the use of the central facility.
> >
> > That database is called Specref:
> > http://www.specref.org/
> >
> > It is already enabled. For instance, if you add "[[owl2-manchester-
> > syntax]]" somewhere in the spec, the Manchester Syntax should appear in
> > the list of references. Specref won't contain all the references you
> > need though.
> >
> >
> > > Francois – can you help clean up these mechanics please?
> >
> > Yes, will do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Francois.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now I’ll get back onto SSN figures …
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Simon J D Cox *
> > >
> > > Research Scientist
> > >
> > > Environmental Informatics
> > >
> > > CSIRO Land and Water <http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *E*simon.cox@csiro.au <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au>*T*+61 3 9545 2365
> > > *M*+61 403 302 672
> > >
> > >    /Mail:/Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
> > >
> > > /   Visit: /Central Reception,//Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
> > >
> > > /   Deliver: /Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
> > >
> > > people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox <http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox>
> > >
> > > orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
> > >
> > > researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
> > > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
> > >
> > > github.com/dr-shorthair <https://github.com/dr-shorthair>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *PLEASE NOTE*
> > >
> > > The information contained in this email may be confidential or
> > > privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you
> > > have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and
> > > notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted
> > > by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the
> > > integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the
> > > communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /Please consider the environment before printing this email./
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 23:15:15 UTC