Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

On 18.03.25 04:26, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 
> 
...
> 
>     Now I don't know what can be done, if anything, but I am happy to
>     contribute if some action is possible, also outside the realm of W3C.
>     The semantic web community has a long tradition of respectful diversity
>     and it would be a shame if we could not come up with some rectification
>     of the situation. Here in Germany, I am thankfully not at risk of
>     loosing my job by saying so.
> 
> 
> I'd suggest avoiding comparisons implying Germany is inherently safer or 
> more enlightened regarding free speech or laws—historically, no country 
> is without problematic episodes, including Germany. Perhaps better we 
> focus on ensuring our examples are clear, respectful, and inclusive, 
> rather than implicitly praising or criticizing particular national contexts.

Ah, sorry, that's not how I meant it. I just wanted to say that I am not 
affected by the current raging of related debates in the US, which I 
believe some people on this thread had voiced a concern about. If you 
look into recent German politics, you will, I hope, believe me that 
claims of inherent enlightenment would not have occurred to me ;-)

Best regards,
Markus


> 
> 
>     On 17.03.25 15:51, Marco Neumann wrote:
>      > Laura, et al it may be worthwhile to bring this up with the OWL
>     Primer
>      > editors and explore the reasoning behind the decision to come up
>     with
>      > these examples in 2012:
>      >
>      > Pascal Hitzler, Wright State University
>      > Markus Krötzsch, University of Oxford
>      > Bijan Parsia, University of Manchester
>      > Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Nuance Communications
>      > Sebastian Rudolph, FZI Research Center for Information Technology
>      >
>      > Retroactively changing the content of archived, outdated, and now
>      > historical W3C recommendations raises even more questions than
>     the ones
>      > caused by the choice of the examples in the first place.
>      >
>      > Marco
>      >
>      > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:35 PM Laura Hollink <l.hollink@cwi.nl
>     <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl>
>      > <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Thank you for bringing this up, Harshvardhan.
>      >
>      >     I agree with Chaals that changing the examples has a much more
>      >     positive effect than adding a link to a living document with
>      >     examples. So, if this is in anyway possible, then I would
>     vote for
>      >     changing the examples mentioned in Harshvardhan’s email.
>      >
>      >     The objection from Hugh (and others) that there are actually
>      >     documents that refer to these examples, is for me an extra
>     reason to
>      >     change them. The noninclusive effect of these examples
>     reaches much
>      >     further than just the W3C document. They will be repeated in
>      >     classroom, etc.
>      >
>      >     Best,
>      >     Laura
>      >
>      >     -------------------
>      >     Laura Hollink
>      >     Human Centered Data Analytics group
>      >     Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica
>      > http://cwi.nl/~hollink/ <http://cwi.nl/~hollink/> <http://cwi.nl/

>     ~hollink/ <http://cwi.nl/~hollink/>>
>      > l.hollink@cwi.nl <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl>
>     <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl <mailto:l.hollink@cwi.nl>>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >      > Op 17 mrt 2025, om 14:03 heeft Chaals Nevile
>     <chaals@fastmail.fm <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm>
>      >     <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm>>> het
>     volgende geschreven:
>      >      >
>      >      > Indeed it would be cheaper. But realistically, not massively
>      >     (given that we aren't talking about a massive amount of work
>     given
>      >     the overall value of OWL), and the value would equally be
>     much lower...
>      >      >
>      >      > (Although if someone has a good pointer to add which does
>     include
>      >     more living examples, that would be a Good Thing to note in any
>      >     Edited Recommendation).
>      >      >
>      >      > cheers
>      >      >
>      >      > Chaals
>      >      >
>      >      > On Monday, 17 March 2025 13:14:51 (+01:00), Dan Brickley
>     wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:35 Chaals Nevile
>     <chaals@fastmail.fm <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm>
>      >     <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm <mailto:chaals@fastmail.fm>>> wrote:
>      >      > Actually, since changing the examples would be a completely
>      >     editorial change, although it is more than correcting a typo
>     there
>      >     is no real barrier to doing it, beyond the fact that it needs a
>      >     little bit of work.
>      >      >
>      >      > To be honest, not everyone does like pizza, but it's a
>     reasonable
>      >     example to use because most people who are going to use OWL know
>      >     enough about pizzas to find the examples relatable.
>      >      >
>      >      > While it is indeed important to work on new
>     recommendations, it
>      >     seems reasonable to update the old examples too, and it
>     shouldn't be
>      >     hard to find someone who considers doing that a reasonable use of
>      >     their time and capabilities. I'll nominate myself as one such
>     person...
>      >      >
>      >      > A cheaper fix might be to add a line saying the status of the
>      >     examples is that they look a bit dated/hackneyed and point to
>      >     somewhere (wiki, github etc.) where more varied and diverse
>     living
>      >     collection of examples can be found.
>      >      >
>      >      > Dan
>      >      >
>      >      > cheers
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > On Monday, 17 March 2025 10:38:15 (+01:00), Marco Neumann
>     wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      > Blessed be the fruit,
>      >      > this has been an issue since the beginning of RDF modelling
>      >     examples in the late 1990s. These W3C documents can be seen as a
>      >     record in time, and updating them is not an option as they are
>      >     constituent parts of the existing W3C recommendation.
>      >      >
>      >      > The best approach would be to create a new document that
>      >     supersedes the status quo of the respective recommendation. 
>     eg new
>      >     standards, I highly recommend help working on new recommendations
>      >     and their supporting documentation like RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2-
>      >      >
>      >      > Best,
>      >      > Marco
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:25 AM Chris Mungall
>     <cmungall@gmail.com <mailto:cmungall@gmail.com>
>      >     <mailto:cmungall@gmail.com <mailto:cmungall@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>      >      > Hi Harshvardhan,
>      >      >
>      >      > Seems like a good idea, but I am not sure how easy it is to
>      >     update W3C recommendations.
>      >      >
>      >      > This is perhaps a good time to mention that one of the most
>      >     widely used ontologies for clinical and cancer research in the US
>      >     used to have good modeling of gender concepts. However, in the
>      >     latest release of the ontology from last week, OWL classes
>     relating
>      >     to gender have been deprecated or tagged, in compliance with US
>      >     Executive Order 14168, see https://genomic.social/ <https://
>     genomic.social/>
>      >     @Cmungall/114152616246522594 <https://genomic.social/
>     <https://genomic.social/>
>      >     @Cmungall/114152616246522594>.
>      >      >
>      >      > While there are certainly more terrible things happening right
>      >     now, this is a chilling demonstration of the far-reaching
>     effects of
>      >     the current administration's actions.
>      >      >
>      >      > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 3:33 PM Harshvardhan J. Pandit
>      >     <me@harshp.com <mailto:me@harshp.com> <mailto:me@harshp.com
>     <mailto:me@harshp.com>>> wrote:
>      >      > Hi All.
>      >      > While revisiting the OWL2 primer recently at
>      >      > https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/

>     owl2-primer/> <https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2- <https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2->
>      >     primer/>, I found several examples for showing
>      >      > how OWL2 works that try to model social constructs like
>     man/woman,
>      >      > parent/child, father/mother in a way that I consider
>     increasingly
>      >     out of
>      >      > touch with today. I propose that these be changed to something
>      >     that has
>      >      > no issues or over which no social, ethical, or political
>      >     discussions are
>      >      > necessary for the adopter as the goal here is to show how
>     OWL2 works.
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > E.g. Sec 4.2 Suppose we also want to state that all
>     mothers are
>      >     women:
>      >      > SubClassOf( :Mother :Woman )
>      >      >
>      >      > Here, it represents that mother is a strict subset of
>     woman i.e.
>      >     only
>      >      > women can be mothers. However, "Woman" here is referring to
>      >     "woman as a
>      >      > human of female sex" and not "woman as gender". Rather
>     than get into
>      >      > what these definitions should be, or what kind of sets
>     exist and
>      >     their
>      >      > intersections (e.g. woman, trans-woman, trans-man,
>     intersex, and
>      >     so on)
>      >      > - my point is that these are not good examples to start
>     modelling
>      >     with
>      >      > even if they might have been seen as "intuitive" some
>     decades ago...
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > E.g. Sec 4.3 For example, if we consider the classes Man and
>      >     Woman, we
>      >      > know that no individual can be an instance of both classes
>     (for
>      >     the sake
>      >      > of the example, we disregard biological borderline cases)...
>      >      > DisjointClasses( :Woman :Man )
>      >      >
>      >      > Again, we should not exclude anyone here just because they are
>      >     'on the
>      >      > fringes' and also because there are ways people can change
>     their
>      >     sex and
>      >      > their gender -- so this example is not a good example to
>     use here.
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > E.g. Sec 4.6 For instance, the statement that B is the
>     wife of A
>      >      > obviously implies that B is a woman while A is a man.
>      >      > ObjectPropertyDomain( :hasWife :Man )
>     ObjectPropertyRange( :hasWife
>      >      > :Woman ) ... Having these two axioms in place and given
>     e.g. the
>      >      > information that Sasha is related to Hillary via the property
>      >     hasWife, a
>      >      > reasoner would be able to infer that Sasha is a man and
>     Hillary a
>      >     woman.
>      >      >
>      >      > While I don't know what is the canonical name for people
>     who are not
>      >      > married (partner?) or who are in a same-sex/gender
>     relationship
>      >     -- this
>      >      > is again a good point to note that the example has
>     implications
>      >     beyond
>      >      > OWL and shouldn't be used here.
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > E.g. Sec 5.1 The following example states that the class
>     Mother
>      >     consists
>      >      > of exactly those objects which are instances of both Woman and
>      >     Parent
>      >      > EquivalentClasses(
>      >      >     :Mother
>      >      >     ObjectIntersectionOf( :Woman :Parent )
>      >      >   )
>      >      >
>      >      > Again, this has more implications to consider such as
>     transgender
>      >      > mothers and also motherhood following sex-change.
>     Therefore, this
>      >     is not
>      >      > a good example to learn about how OWL.
>      >      >
>      >      > We also have in Sec 10
>      >      > SubClassOf(
>      >      >     :Father
>      >      >     ObjectIntersectionOf( :Man :Parent )
>      >      >   )
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > E.g. Sec 5.1 we could characterize the class of all parents as
>      >     the union
>      >      > of the classes Mother and Father
>      >      > EquivalentClasses(
>      >      >     :Parent
>      >      >     ObjectUnionOf( :Mother :Father )
>      >      >   )
>      >      >
>      >      > Parents are not exclusive to mothers and fathers e.g.
>     stepmother or
>      >      > grandparent, or even non-biological parents (though they
>     would be
>      >     called
>      >      > the same). Further, it might be seen as saying parents are
>     always a
>      >      > combination of a mother and a father - though this is not
>     in the
>      >     text or
>      >      > the rule. (I'll note that in Sec.9 the concept "SocialRole" is
>      >     stated as
>      >      > a metaclass of Father, but isn't defined or explained)
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      >
>      >      > Is this change urgent? No. Is this outright offending
>     anyone? I
>      >     don't
>      >      > think so. But should we change this? Yes, I think so. Each
>     year
>      >     there
>      >      > will be many more new people and newer generations
>     learning OWL, and
>      >      > many of us relearning it. So we shouldn't wait for this to
>     be an
>      >     issue
>      >      > either for being out of touch or for not being considerate
>     before we
>      >      > change it.
>      >      >
>      >      > So what do we change this with? I think examples with
>     animals (cats,
>      >      > dogs), shapes, etc. are universal, and aren't at risk of not
>      >     conforming
>      >      > to society or for not being empathic. Or if we still want
>     to model
>      >      > people, let's do friendships and work relationships that
>     have no
>      >      > personal characteristics. For OWL specifically, I think
>     the Pizza
>      >      > ontology used as a tutorial in Protege is also a good
>     option as
>      >      > everybody likes pizza! (well, I hope).
>      >      > --
>      >      > ---
>      >      > Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
>      >      > Assistant Professor
>      >      > ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University
>      >      > https://harshp.com/ <https://harshp.com/> <https://
>     harshp.com/ <https://harshp.com/>>
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > --
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ---
>      >      > Marco Neumann
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > --
>      >      > Charles "Chaals" Nevile
>      >      > Using fastmail.fm <http://fastmail.fm> <http://fastmail.fm

>     <http://fastmail.fm>> because it's worth it
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      >
>      >
>      > ---
>      > Marco Neumann
>      >
>      >
> 
>     -- 
>     Prof. Dr. Markus Kroetzsch
>     Knowledge-Based Systems Group
>     Faculty of Computer Science
>     TU Dresden
>     +49 351 463 38486
>     https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/ <https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/>
> 

-- 
Prof. Dr. Markus Kroetzsch
Knowledge-Based Systems Group
Faculty of Computer Science
TU Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2025 07:07:36 UTC