RE: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria

Francois,

To go back to Simon's question about 'consumer implementation', last year I think we discussed this with Phil, and I gained the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that on the consumer side, if the OWL-Time terminology was used, for example to describe a publicly exposed resource/dataset, that would be evidence of implementation.

I could try to do something like that, but ontologies are not really on our technological agenda yet - we expected to use user friendly toolsets with the ontology 'plugged in'. 

Is that good enough for the 'consumer implementation'? Or is the consumer side meant to demonstrate some higher level of logical deduction?

Chris

Apologies for being offline until today.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 7:52 AM
> To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Little, Chris
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria
> 
> > From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:15 PM
> >
> > I understand that there is a minimum 4-week period for CR.
> > But what is the maximum?
> > Can a document linger at CR for a long period until the exit criteria
> > are satisfied?
> 
> A document can linger at CR for as long as the Working Group exists.
> 
> In our case, the problem is that the Working Group is chartered until
> end of June and already got a 6-month extension to complete the work.
> 
> We will have to ask for another short extension, say 2-3 months, for
> the Time Ontology, and hopefully SSN, to reach Recommendation status,
> but I think this extension will only be granted provided the actual
> work is done, meaning if we just need to go through the reminder of the
> process (publication as Proposed Recommendation and publication as
> Recommendation) where there is not much to do on top of organizing the
> transitions.
> 
> In other words, the implementation report should be as complete as
> possible by end of June and, ideally, we'd be able to request
> transition to Proposed Recommendation 4 weeks after publication as CR.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 1 June, 2017 07:12
> > To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> > chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
> > Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria
> >
> > > From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:04 PM
> > >
> > > Seems fair enough on the surface, though not quite so sure in
> practice.
> > >
> > > I guess 'producer implementation' is intended to mean some kind of
> > > service that publishes using OWL-Time, and 'consumer
> implementation'
> > > some application that is consuming data published using OWL-Time?
> In
> > > a
> > > linked- data/restful context is a resource that mentions some other
> > > resource which, when de-referenced, mentions OWL-Time resources, a
> > > "consumer implementation"?
> >
> > I do not know how to define "consumer implementation", perhaps others
> > can clarify. I would personally assume something that injects OWL-
> Time
> > resources to do something with it, e.g. to render it in some human
> > readable way or to compute something out of it. Following links to
> see
> > a mention seems somewhat passive.
> >
> > Francois.
> >
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 1 June, 2017 01:08
> > > To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> > > chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria
> > >
> > > Simon, Chris, Time Ontology enthusiasts,
> > >
> > > The Director recommends to amend the first sub-bullet of bullet 3
> of
> > > the CR exit criteria to mention both producers and consumers of the
> > > ontology, from "Demonstrated use in two external implementations"
> to
> > > "Demonstrated use in at least two producer implementations and two
> > > consumer implementations". Would that be ok with you?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Francois.
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 08:42:03 UTC