[ig/oki] Ontologies and Knowledge Graphs in Industry Interest Group

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

Dear colleagues.

We have a charter ready according to the template for proposing a new working group. How should we proceed?

Best regards,
Jesualdo

---

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff from charter template

Expected end of charter refinement phase: unknown

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New

• New WG

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach

Known or potential areas of concern

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)

Anything else we should think about as we review?

Note: proposed chairs should be copied @... on this issue.

[simoneonofri]

Hola @jesualdotomasfernandezbreis, do you have a link to the charter? Gracias!

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

Yes, this is the link to the charter.

Thanks @simoneonofri

[simoneonofri]

Yes, this is the link to the charter.

Thank you, cc'ing @pchampin

[michaelchampion]

I see a number of issues the WG proponents should address:

• The diff from charter template link above doesn't work ("sorry, I decline to handle file: addresses")
• I don't see a clear statement that non-specialists could use to understand the problem for some set of web users the proposed working group would address. The Motivation section is quite abstract, and the Scope section is difficult for a non-specialist in this area to understand without more context.
• The Success Criteria section seems to be text from the template with little customization for this proposal. If "The Working Group will not deliver W3C normative specifications" then I don't understand what the language about interoperable implementations and test suites refers to. What WOULD success look like for a group doing the proposed work? THAT is the key question the for Success Criteria section.
• All the Proposed Deliverables have the status "not started". In my experience, successful working group proposers have incubated their deliverables to some extent -- not to the point where they are "rubber stamped" by W3C, but to the point it is clear that there is a community working together to solve some concrete problems -- and there is rough consensus on the outline of a solution. I see little evidence of that in the proposal.

I'd suggest the Strategy Team counsel the charter proponents to:

• reconsider whether they REALLY need to create a WG if they are not delivering normative specifications. Would an Interest Group be the more appropriate W3C vehicle for this work?
• build an engaged community of people willing and able to contribute to the work. Community Groups were designed for this purpose of building a community around a problem, getting consensus on approaches / rough drafts, and getting buy-in from the target audience. If that community does already exist, the draft charter should reference it.
• most specifically, charters MUST (in my opinion as a long-time W3C observer) start with a clear idea of the use cases the group will address and success criteria to demonstrate they have addressed them. Those might be a "deliverable" that can get updated as it becomes clear what the WG can and cannot really accomplish, but assuming a WG will converge on a set of use cases after it is chartered is a "red flag" for me.

[plehegar]

It would be nice if this proposal was presented to the exploration IG, by filing an issue.

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

Dear @plehegar and @pchampin.

Thanks for reviewing the charter and for your comments. I think an IG may be an appropriate vehicle then. We will adapt the charter following your recommendations.

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

Dear @plehegar and @pchampin.

I share with you the proposal for the OKI Interest Group.

We have tried to follow your recommendations.

Thanks!