Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

I think Dan understood what I was getting at, which is not that the current examples assuming universal agreement (“any human reader”) should be replaced with new examples assuming universal agreement, but that the examples should do a better job of emphasizing that data modeling is about documenting a specific, limited, not necessarily truthful, account of the world — and what better what to do that than to demonstrate the open world assumption in action?

> On Mar 17, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd say a few people in the community would likely agree with you, Ryan, in that OWL2 serves as an excellent negative example of the consequences of certain ontological commitments. However, it is important to remember that we are dealing here with technical subsystems that are designed to model a specific, limited view, not necessarily truthful, account of the world—one that reflects the particular aspects you may wish to represent. 
> 
> Here, Harshvardhan has a point, and Harshvardhan may want to bring this up with the editors to see if there is scope for different examples in the future to stop regurgitating the existing ones. That said, I am just looking at his reasoning again, and he is introducing himself (or herself) some ontological assumptions that may not be shared across the board. 
> 
> Marco 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:08 PM Shaw, Ryan <ryanshaw@unc.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 17, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I believe the best way forward is to replace the "rules" with new "rules" and supersede past actions with new ones. The historical record, the old laws, standards, etc., should be kept as a reference to evaluate documents and the process of evolution in a historical context. 
> 
> I agree, and this is essentially what I was suggesting. The W3C already does an exemplary job doing this with whole documents, such as versions of (what might become) recommendations. But its approach is a bit sclerotic when it comes to more minor changes, such as updating examples.
> 
> In this specific case, it would be interesting to rework the examples to demonstrate how OWL can mediate between two incompatible views of the world in order to allow partial communication between them. (Something we are already in practical need of.)
> 
> I use the current OWL2 Primer in my teaching, but only in a negative way, as an example of misunderstanding data modeling as describing “what is clear to any human reader” rather than as describing some specific community’s consensus or dictate regarding how describe some part of the world relevant to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> ---
> Marco Neumann
> 
>

Received on Monday, 17 March 2025 16:54:01 UTC