Re: Time Ontology and SSN ontology published as REC, WG is done!

Congratulations, and special thanks to Phil and Francois for guidance through the W3C labyrinth.

There were certainly many challenges of alignment, scope, and functionality to be overcome, but there were also some technical hurdles of RDF / OWL capabilities for distributed modular vocabularies that seemed avoidable. It would be very useful, I think, to do some sort of debrief on what tools having to do with ontology membership, perhaps connected to named graph management, might mitigate this in the future.

Cheers,

Josh

Joshua Lieberman
Senior Researcher
Harvard Center for Geographic Analysis
jlieberman@fas.harvard.edu <mailto:jlieberman@fas.harvard.edu>
+1 (617) 431 6431

> On Oct 19, 2017, at 7:43 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello participants of the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group,
> 
> As forwarded by Armin in previous email, the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology has been published as a final W3C Recommendation today, a happy ending after a bumpy journey on the standardization track:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-vocab-ssn-20171019/
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/
> 
> But that's not the only good news for today. It so happens that the Time Ontology in OWL specification has also been published as a W3C Recommendation, another happy ending after a fairly long journey started more than 10 years ago:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-owl-time-20171019/
> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
> 
> The Working Group is now officially done, yoohoo! Congratulations to everyone, chairs, editors, participants, external contributors, and Phil without whom nothing would have happened!
> 
> For all things practical, you can now consider the Working Group as closed and you should all jump onto the Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group, who will have its first call next week:
> https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2017Oct/0001.html
> 
> That said, due to a shortcoming in the W3C Process, which requires the presence of a Working Group for spec maintenance, please note that we will most likely keep the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group alive for some time, with the expectation that it will not do anything on top of being the entity that publishes possible errata on the specs. The errata themselves should be discussed in the Interest Group.
> 
> If all goes well, the 2018 version of the Process document will fix the issue, and the Working Group can be properly closed then.
> 
> Thanks,
> Francois.
> 
> 
>