Re: Implementation evidence for SSN https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/

Hi Armin,

That's perfect, thank you! You do not need to include anything in the 
document about CR exit criteria having been met. You may remove the 
"Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria" section as well.

You could point out the fact that the System Capabilities Module is now 
informative in the Status of This Document section though (on top of 
putting it in the change section as you already did).

I will prepare and send a "Call for consensus" today.

Francois.

Le 21/08/2017 à 07:54, Armin Haller a écrit :
> Hi Francois,
>
> Apologies for the delay. I have now made the changes as requested. I have also fixed issue 958 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/958 you raised.
>
> Do I need to include something in the document that all CR exit criteria have been met: http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-vocab-ssn-20170711/#exit or was my email on August 8th to the list sufficient?
>
> I am happy for you to raise a “Call for consensus”, otherwise I can do that later today.
>
> Kind regards,
> Armin
>
> On 13/8/17, 6:21 pm, "François Daoust" <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
>     Hello Armin,
>
>     Le 08/08/2017 à 03:53, Armin Haller a écrit :
>     > Dear all,
>     >
>     > I am happy to report that we have received ample evidence of implementations either extending (producers) the SSN ontology or implementations using SSN in their application/dataset (consumers). Some implementations are still ongoing and we could not include them yet. Especially consumer implementations are taking months to implement, while some of them are even Closed Linked Data and therefore can’t be included as evidence at all.
>
>     Feel free to include on-going implementations that seem worth pointing
>     out in the usage doc (or we can mention them within the transition
>     request that I'll send to the Director). It's good to separate them from
>     real implementations, but they still seem useful to show evidence that
>     the ontology is being adopted.
>
>
>     > We have documented the reference implementations of SSN in: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
>     >
>     > We have documented evidence of the usage of every core Module in SSN of at least 2 (up to 15 for the Features of Interest and Properties Module) consumer implementations and evidence for the usage of every core Module in SSN of at least 2 (up to 15 for the Observations Module) producer implementations. We have also documented evidence for the usage of every term in at least one consumer and at least one producer implementation. We have also evidence for 80% of the terms being used in at least 2 (up to 15 for hasFeatureOfInterest) consumer implementations and evidence for 78% of the terms being used in at least 2 (up to 11 for Property and Sensor) producer implementations.
>     >
>     > As expected, we did not get sufficient evidence for the usage of all terms in the ssn-systems module and, therefore propose to make that module optional (i.e. non-normative).
>     >
>     > Otherwise, although we came slightly short of having 2 consumer implementations and 2 producer implementations for every term, we do believe that we have shown sufficient evidence for all terms to be considered normative and therefore for SSN to become a W3C Recommendation.
>
>     Great! That seems a good plan to me. Process-wise, here is what I need
>     to request publication as Proposed Recommendation:
>
>     1. An updated Editor's Draft with the ssn-systems module flagged as "non
>     normative" and an updated Change History section that summarizes the
>     changes since last publication:
>       https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/#changes
>     (I also noted a minor inconsistency in:
>     https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/958)
>     2. Some demonstration that all CR exit criteria have been met:
>       http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-vocab-ssn-20170711/#exit
>     3. A record of a group resolution to request publication of the
>     specification as Proposed Recommendation. Could you issue a call for
>     consensus with a one week deadline as soon as normative changes to the
>     spec have been made? (Minor editorial updates to the spec may still be
>     integrated during the call for consensus).
>
>     As noted in the email I just sent to the group's mailing-list on the
>     Time Ontology spec, the SSN spec has a normative dependency on the Time
>     Ontology, and thus cannot be published as a Proposed Recommendation as
>     long as the Time Ontology has not made it to Proposed Recommendation as
>     well. Let's try to synchronize progress of both specs!
>
>     Thanks,
>     Francois.
>
>
>     >
>     > If you have an implementation that is not yet covered in http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/, please do let us know asap.
>     >
>     > Kind regards,
>     > Armin
>     >
>
>

Received on Monday, 21 August 2017 06:44:25 UTC