- RDS/WIP Introduction
- RDS/WIP Sample Queries
- RDS/WIP Staging Diagrams
- RDS/WIP 1.0 Plan
- RDS/WIP 1.0 Testing
- RDS/WIP 1.0 Process
- RDS/WIP 1.0 Inventory
- RDS/WIP 2.0 Plan
- RDS/WIP ID Generator
- RDS/WIP Domain Proposal
- RDS/WIP Requirements Table
- RDS/WIP Use Case: Discrete Editing
- RDS/WIP Use Case: CSV Upload
- RDS/WIP 1.0 General Use Cases
- RDS/WIP 2.0 General Use Cases
- RDS/WIP ISO 15926 Template Definitions
- RDS/WIP OWL/RDF Definition
- RDS/WIP OWL/RDF Project Plan
- RDS/WIP Forums
- RDS/WIP Use Case: Bulk Upload
Project Plan: ISO 15926 in OWL/RDF for RDS/WIP
As detailed on the RDS/WIP publishing format page, there is a need for an OWL/RDF representation of ISO 15926 concepts that is as close to semantic web conventions as possible. This need not be the same as the base definition format in OWL, but it would be good if it is an easily-derived superset. We have termed this superset "external OWL" in short, contrasting against the base definition format as "internal OWL".
This page describes the milestones and dependencies of this deliverable and intends to act as a planning page for the project that produces it.
Note: currently, this is largely a placeholder.
June 2008 - the RDS/WIP project anticipates release of the RDS/WIP 1.0 - a production quality release of the existing RDS/WIP service, deployed on a new platform and with different hosting. A reasonably complete, but not necessarily fixed, OWL/RDF representation will be required for that release to be finished, anticipated as end of June 2008, but likely extending into July somewhat.
October 2008 - will bring about the announcement of the availability of the RDS/WIP service for use by yellow belt modellers in ISO 15926 and users of other standards for harmonization against ISO 15926. This will require published and operational submission procedures and a much more fixed OWL/RDF publishing format.
Since we have come to broad agreement that there does need to be at least two different forms of OWL/RDF for ISO 15926, and that it would be good to leverage as much commonality as possible, then this creates a contingency on the outcome of the internal OWL project, or at least to the degree that commonality is possible.
It is important that is outwardly recognized that the pace of the development of the "internal OWL" form is different to that of the "external OWL" form - expedient decisions may be required, but there still needs to be as much coordination and consultation between the two teams as possible (likely the team members of both will be identical, just different leadership).
The originally proposed part 7 OWL/RDF representation also weighs heavily on the design of the public format - the work done in this form is a huge basis for and contributor to any ongoing work for any ISO 15926 OWL/RDF representation. It is highly likely that there are important elements of its design that are the result of careful and considered analysis of the problem space. As such, doing something different to this original form should require a very structured, robust and intensive debate.
Minimally this will require the input of Onno Paap, Johan W. Klüwer, Martin G. Skjæveland, Rahul Patil and Julian Bourne. Onno should be the formal leader, Julian will provide back up with day to day coordination.