RE: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria

Of course OWL-Time is highly unlikely to ever be used all by itself - it is a building block ontology providing a key component expected to be useful in various applications. Thus, adoption and implementation is always in the context of other ontologies, and consumer implementations also. That means there is inevitably a lag in rich implementations as word gets around that this functionality is now available in a common or standard place, rather than everyone doing it differently. 

In fact the long life of OWL-Time (since 2006 in the old version, almost all of which has been preserved in the new version) means that there are already quite a few external ontologies that adopt OWL-Time. But the new features are less widely adopted, and we would expect this to remain the case for months or years. I don't think we need any special pleading to make the case for OWL-Time relevance and adoption, just a sensible understanding of what 'implementation' and 'consumption' means and the time scale over which various kinds of implementation can reasonably be expected to occur.  

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June, 2017 19:06
To: 'Little, Chris' <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Time Ontology - adjust CR exit criteria

Hi Chris,

> From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 10:41 AM
> 
> 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.

Phil has much more experience than I have on ontologies, I would trust him!

How do you define "describe" here? If it matches "to render [data] in some human readable way" as mentioned somewhere in that thread, then it sounds good to me. If not, what would that service do?

What I think would not count is a service that just lists properties and values automatically without any kind of processing, as a raw JSON-LD dump or a mere automatic RDF-to-HTML conversion. Processing could perhaps be restricted to providing human-friendly labels and units instead of the internal property names.

More importantly, this service should make sense to you. That is, doing it for the sake of providing implementation evidence seems wrong and would likely be frowned upon by the Director in any case. If it does not make sense to you, then so be it, let's find something else or let's argue that consumer implementations will come later on.

Francois.

> 
> 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 10:01:52 UTC