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

That's great to know. Thanks Scott.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 20:34 Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> We could slip in another week on the OGC side as the members will still
> have 45 days to review when the vote starts. I will have to let members
> know that the vote is starting less than 3 weeks after the posting, but
> note that members have seen several previous versions, so you kinda-sorta
> met the 3-week rule a long time ago.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>