- From: Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:07:18 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>, Laura Hollink <l.hollink@cwi.nl>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <ccbb50bf-669e-4b80-9ca4-d56e18cd0f27@tu-dresden.de>
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 Retroactively changing the content of archived, outdated, and now 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