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, 31 May 2017 21:12:27 UTC