- From: Robert Warren <warren@glengarryag.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:52:52 -0400
- To: Simon Cox <dr.shorthair@pm.me>
- Cc: SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Rob Atkinson <ratkinson@ogc.org>, Luis de Sousa <luis.moreira.de.sousa@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>, Kathi Schleidt <Kathi@DataCove.eu>, Krzysztof Janowicz <krzysztof.janowicz@univie.ac.at>, Grellet Sylvain <S.Grellet@brgm.fr>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Had to bow out of this meeting but had this conversation with Francois Daoust that I wanted to share about the implementation reports: Will make soom Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > I guess the answer is going to be "somewhere in between" but I appreciate that it is not a fantastically useful answer. Let's see if I can expand on that. > > The Process document describes the goals of the implementation report [2]. A core goal is to provide evidence that each feature is implemented. > > It does not strike me as odd to build the new usage report as suggested in the introduction, meaning as "supplement to the original usage report, adding usage information relating to the terms added to SSN in the 2024 update". In other words, it seems fine to detail usage of new terms as was done in the previous report, and not to re-write a full implementation report for terms that did not change since the 2017 edition. > > That said, it may still be worth: > - reporting briefly on continued/growing support for terms in the 2017 edition, e.g., by saying something along the lines of "the evidence provided in the previous implementation report is still accurate. New datasets identified in this report also leverage 2017 terms" (provided that's accurate) > - expanding on what happened to terms for which there were minimal evidence in the 2017 edition. The list in the current document does not seem to provide a definitive answer. > > Beyond usage in dataset and ontologies, software that makes use of the terms, either because it outputs data using these terms or uses them for processing the data, is also valuable implementation experience and worth listing. The key here is to highlight specific usage of the terms, as opposed to generic software that may accept but does not do anything specific with the terms (for example, a generic SPARQL endpoint). > > I'm happy to discuss further. Examples of what you'd consider to be a bullet point list vs. a detailed auditing document could perhaps help me provide better guidance! > > Thanks, > François. > > [2] https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#implementation-experience
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 11:53:08 UTC