Re: Timeline to reach REC by end of June for SSN and Time ontologies

Hi-

I'm reading through these dates, looking at the calendar and only counting
3-weeks until we're supposed to be done (including this week).

Looking at the Detailed Plan [1] for this sprint (agree during Delft F2F)
that's about one-week too short.

Phil / François / Scott ... please can we have an extra week (e.g. to
"freeze" for a vote to release on, say, Friday 21-April)? This should still
leave enough time to get the doc published via both W3C and OGC in time for
presentation to the OGC TC by 12-May.

At tomorrow's sub-group call, we're (mainly) doing planning. Knowing our
target date would be very useful.

Thanks!

Jeremy



[1]:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017
:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 09:42 Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
wrote:

Another hello to you,

Based on the timeline provided below from Francois, here are the key OGC
milestones required to reach a 30 June 2017 publication date.

Best Practices

21 April - post of Best Practices to OGC Pending Documents: no major
changes allowed after this date
12 May - webinar to present Best Practices to Technical Committee (TC)
14 May - start TC recommendation vote (45 days)
30 June - Planning Committee (PC) approval at face-to-face meeting in St.
John’s

Standards

The W3C Recommendations cannot be approved as OGC standards by this
deadline. The process takes approximately 120 days once a stable version is
posted for review. What I recommend are the following milestones, starting
with the 14 April Last Working Draft.

14 April - submit document to OGC Architecture Board (OAB) for review
2 May - OAB review
3 May - start Public Comment (30 days)
15 May - finalize document with synchronized comments from W3C and OAB
reviews
2 June - assess whether public comments impact document
early June or 29 June - present standard to TC and request start of
electronic vote
middle to end of August - TC and PC votes complete and standard can become
official in OGC

Note that the Recommendations could also be published as OGC Best Practices
and later advanced as standards to meet the deadline.

Thanks,
Scott

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group participants,
>
> Following discussions with Phil, Chairs and last week's F2F exchanges, we
thought it would be good to make deadlines clear for everyone, especially
for specifications that are to be published as W3C Recommendations (the SSN
and Time ontologies). What follows is a concrete timeline to meet
constraints imposed by the W3C Process.
>
> The relevants bits of the Process documents are at:
> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#candidate-rec
>
> W3C process is relatively lightweight for Notes, so the Best Practices
document and the CoverageJSON document basically just need to keep that end
date in mind, and aim for last publication slightly before 30 June 2017.
>
> The Spatial Data on the Web WG was granted a six-month extension until
June 2017 to finalize on-going deliverables. Even if the group can
demonstrate progress, it is unlikely that it can get another extension for
the exact same reason after that. In other words, all documents should be
done by end of June 2017. Now, we may be able to negotiate that "done" can
be interpreted as "nearly done". Keep in mind that the following proposed
timeline already takes that into account and actually ends after June 2017!
>
> Timeline to "almost" go to Rec by end of June 2017:
>
> 14 April - Publication of a last Working Draft
> -----
> Prerequisites:
> - Most substantive issues have been addressed. A few minor ones may
remain. In other words, the expectation should be that no further major
substantive changes are foreseen by the WG after that draft, except in
response to comments.
>
> Next for the group:
> - The group should publicize the work to relevant people and
organizations to achieve wide review of the document.
> - Wide review includes horizontal reviews on accessibility,
internationalization, performance, privacy, and security by relevant groups
at W3C. Horizontal reviews take time, you should not expect these groups to
get back to you within two weeks. Given the specifications, comments from
horizontal reviews should be minimal, so hopefully we'll be able to conduct
all reviews within a month timeframe.
> - In parallel, the group should discuss and agree on possible exit
criteria for the Candidate Recommendation phase. For vocabularies, this
probably means something like at least 2 independent uses of all terms with
evidence of main terms being used more than that.
> - The group may also want to list possible features at risk (e.g. terms
that could be dropped from the spec if they turn out not to be implemented)
> - The group should prepare a skeleton of an implementation report and
assess implementation plans within the group (and/or elsewhere).
>
>
> 15 May - Agreement to publish a Candidate Recommendation
> -----
> Prerequisites:
> - The group has addressed comments from the wide review to the
satisfaction of the reviewer(s) or has recorded disagreement with a
rationale somewhere.
> - The spec was updated accordingly. All issues that affect normative
statements in the spec are closed (the group can still improve examples and
other informative text afterwards)
> - Exit criteria are known and written in the spec.
> - The group knows how to gather implementation evidence to prove multiple
implementations.
>
> The group can then resolves to request publication of the specification
as Candidate Recommendation, which must be approved by the W3C Director.
This usually takes two weeks, sometimes less. The group should start to
work on filling out the implementation report in the meantime.
>
>
> 30 May 2017 - Publication as a Candidate Recommendation
> -----
> Prerequisites:
> - The W3C Director approved the publication
>
> Per process, the Candidate Recommendation phase cannot be less than 4
weeks. During that time, the group needs to prepare the implementation
report and make sure all terms are properly covered by existing
implementations.
>
> The group is not allowed to make any substantive change to the
specification during that time. If substantive changes are needed, the
group must publish another Candidate Recommendation, which would jeopardize
the timeline, so it's critical that you get things right the first time!
>
>
> 28 June 2017 - Request publication as Proposed Recommendation
> -----
> Prerequisites:
> - No substantive change has been made to the spec since publication as
Candidate Recommendation
> - No issue has been found with the spec that would require such a
substantive change
> - All editorial issues have been addressed
> - The implementation report is ready and shows green lights everywhere
> - The group has resolved to publish the spec as Proposed Recommendation.
>
> What happens next is mostly out of the hands of the Working Group so,
although publication as Proposed Recommendation may take place after the
end of the current charter, we should be able to have the group extended
long enough to handle the rest of the process and the publication of the
spec as a final Recommendation.
>
>
> This timeline supposes that all goes well! I'm afraid there is no real
way to overcome any delay that may stack up at any of these steps. In other
words, mid-April should be viewed as the deadline for any substantive
change in these documents. It seems doable for the Time Ontology, harder to
achieve for the SSN Ontology.
>
> For what it's worth, if these specifications cannot move forward on the
Recommendation track by the end of the charter, they can be still be
published as Working Group Notes.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>
>