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

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff from charter template

Expected end of charter refinement phase: unknown

If applicable:

diff from previous charter

chair dashboard

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

• New

• New WG
• [X ] New IG
• If this is a new WG or IG charter request, link to Advance Notice, and any issue discussion:

• Existing

• Existing WG recharter
• Existing IG recharter
• If this is a charter extension or revision, any issue discussion:

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.

[plehegar]

Thank you for sending us this charter.

The W3C Team looked into this and decided not to initiate charter refinement.

Instead, we suggests this is better fitted as a Community Group, rather than having an Interest Group.

You may also bring this to the Exploration IG to get additional feedback from other W3C Members.

[VladimirAlexiev]

(posted at https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2025/10/10/proposed-group-ontologies-and-knowledge-graphs-in-industry-community-group/)
Hi @jesualdotomasfernandezbreis !

Vladimir Alexiev here, chief data architect at Graphwise.ai.
Such a group matches my interests perfectly, so I support it.

• But the area is huge, so the scope is described too narrowly.
• ISO 81346 is just one of 10-20 major initiatives. How about OntoCommons (now closed, but their TLO/MLO are good), IOF, IDO, AAS, ECLASS, READI, CFIHOS, electrical CIM, etc etc etc.
• Achieving "one unified industrial ontology" is impossible, but still having a group where we can at least inform each other is useful.

PS:

• https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/jesualdotomasfernandezbreis/charter-wg-oki/blob/main/charter-oki-ig.html to see the charter
• https://raw.githack.com/jesualdotomasfernandezbreis/charter-wg-oki/blob/main/charter-oki-ig.html : how come this doesn't work, it's used by the SHACL WG? @pchampin did I get the URL Wrong?

PPS: I've now read the charter

• "development, implementation, and maintenance of industrial designation systems and standards as ontologies—specifically focusing on ISO 81346"
  • Publishing ISO 81346 RDS as linked data (and getting rid of those funny + = sigils) is doable and very useful...
• It states "Out of Scope: Ontology development unrelated to designation systems":
  • then please rename the group to match that scope!
• I will vote yes for an "RDS as RDF CG"
  • If you explain how can we license RDS from ISO??

[jesualdotomasfernandezbreis]

Hi @VladimirAlexiev

Yes, there are a lot of standards to consider, ISO 81346 is one of them. The discussions and agreement in the community group will define priorities and actions. So, please support and join us!