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

RE: OWL Time Ontology to Proposed Recommendation?

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:06:00 +0000
To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
CC: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E308EAC@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
Simon, François, 

I have no more information to add about implementations. I had hoped that colleagues at the Met Office could use the 'at risk' terms as part of a test suite for WKT for Temporal CRS, this is too uncertain and certainly too far away.

I would argue that the 'at risk' terms be retained for completeness, otherwise we would be open to the criticism of 'why have you left this obvious hole that could be completed by an obvious extension?'.

But I am not an ontologist, and would be happy to follow Simon's judgement on the way forward.

Chris



> -----Original Message-----
> From: François Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:18 AM
> To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Little, Chris
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: OWL Time Ontology to Proposed Recommendation?
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 15 August 2017 18:06:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 August 2017 18:06:27 UTC