W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: OWL Time Ontology to Proposed Recommendation?

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:18:28 +0200
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, "'Little, Chris'" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <7419a283-94e8-b0b6-b339-e8824c16bb0f@w3.org>
Hello Simon, Chris,

The implementation report for the Time Ontology seems to have been 
updated beginning of August:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption

The usage table seems mostly good to me. The terms for which there is no 
implementation evidence are the ones that had been identified as 
"features at risk". Would you say that the implementation report is now 
good enough? I note the report does not seem to make any difference 
between consumers and producers. The Director will likely ask about 
that, since he insisted on that distinction during the Candidate 
Recommendation transition call.

What do you recommend for the terms with no implementation evidence? As 
features at risk, they can be dropped from the spec without problem. Or 
you may argue that there will prove useful in the long term and that 
they should be preserved. What's your take on this?

We need to move forward and publish the specification as a Proposed 
Recommendation as soon as possible, so that it may be published as a 
final Recommendation by end of September. To request transition to 
Proposed Recommendation, I need:

1. An updated spec if you propose to drop terms with no implementation 
evidence
2. Some demonstration that all CR exit criteria have been met:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-owl-time-20170606/#exit
3. A record of a group's resolution to request transition to Proposed 
Recommendation. Could you issue a call for consensus with a one week 
deadline once the spec has been updated?

I note that the SSN spec has a normative dependency on the Time Ontology 
spec. This means that the Time Ontology spec currently blocks the SSN 
spec. In other words, the SSN spec cannot be published as a Proposed 
Recommendation as long as the Time Ontology has not been published as a 
Proposed Recommendation. I would recommend to try to publish both specs 
at once.

Thanks,
Francois.


Le 06/07/2017 à 17:58, Francois Daoust a écrit :
> Hello Simon, Chris,
>
> Now that the minimal period of time in CR has elapsed, the Time Ontology could in theory move forward to Proposed Recommendation. This requires CR exit criteria to be met though.
>
> I think there is a pending implementation to be added to the OWL Time Ontology adoption page:
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption
>
> Could you add it there?
> Would you consider this implementation report to be complete afterwards?
>
> If so, we should run a call for consensus within the Spatial Data on the Web WG to request a transition to Proposed Recommendation.
> If not, when could we get to a point where that call can be issued?
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>
>
Received on Sunday, 13 August 2017 08:18:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 13 August 2017 08:18:40 UTC