- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:06:37 +0100
- To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Cc: Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>, Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C9BC2507-79D7-41B0-865A-0984C8BF63BF@w3.org>
> On 18 Mar 2025, at 10:33, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Markus and Pascal, thank you for your voluntary contribution to the W3C community by dedicating time to acting as editors for some of the W3C recommendations. It is very much appreciated from my point of view. > > My "recommendation" for Harshvardhan would be to work on new and possibly better examples for RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2. It's perfect timing, and we need more examples to show how the new iteration of RDF can be used effectively. An effort to retroactively change an outdated W3C recommendation (in place) and the Primer is part of it sounds less attractive to me. Just to clarify a slightly administrative aspect. Changing a document in the '/TR space', in the W3C jargon, i.e., a published Recommendation, draft, note, etc, is usually a big no-no, and it hardly ever happens. History is important, and W3C should not change history. What can be done, modulo some administrative hooplas, is to issue a new version of the document. To be very specific. The document we are talking about has a URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/>. This is the "dated" URL. There is also a "short name" URL that is (at this moment) an alias to this "dated" URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/. If the document is updated, it will be published under a new dated URL, something like https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/REC-owl2-primer-2025MMDD. At the moment of the publication, the short name URL, i.e., https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/, will point at the new version. But the version published on 2012-12-11 will remain in place. Ivan > Performing a cultural and linguistic analysis of past W3C recommendations, on the other hand, would be fantastic. :) > > On the general topic of technical documentation, I have to say I find it frequently riddled with semantic and syntactic nonsense; it seems to be a systemic issue from the get-go. Writing better technical recommendations is certainly an ongoing, never-ending aspiration. > > Marco > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:59 PM Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de <mailto:markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>> wrote: >> Hi Marco, hi all, >> >> Thanks for putting my name in here -- it made my mail filter alert me of >> this thread that I might otherwise have missed. I did not follow the >> whole thread, so apologies if I am missing anything important in my >> answer. But in short: I agree that the examples are in part somewhat >> dated and in part outrageously bad, which I also noticed myself when >> revisiting the document recently. In particular Sec. 4.6 is an >> embarrassing blunder from today's view, even for an example. I have no >> objections to publishing an update if there is a reasonable path towards >> this. >> >> The email asked for historical rational behind the chosen examples, so >> let me briefly put this on record (though it is not core to this >> discussion). I think I can speak for all editors when I say that the >> only concern there was understandability, i.e. picking running examples >> for which there is a sufficiently rich and well-known terminology. >> Families seemed a good choice. Please also remember that the document >> stems from 2009, and many examples were already in place in early drafts >> before that (2012 just saw some planned updates in certain references, >> with no mandate to revise the Primer in other aspects). We all learned a >> lot since then, I hope (at least I did ;-). >> >> I think from today's perspective, the whole domain of family relations >> is not suitable for illustrating OWL. Making ontologies is all about >> fixing definitions, whereas the advances of modern gender conceptions is >> in my view also based on giving up the urge to have a strict clear-cut >> definition for every concept in the space. This said, a majority of >> example axioms in the Primer are at least not asserting overly >> problematic claims. For example, the axiom that woman and man are >> disjoint classes can be read as saying that people who identify as women >> do not also (in our model) identify as men, without asserting anything >> about what other genders there might be. I do think that we consciously >> avoided the claim that all persons must be either man or woman (an axiom >> still found in many older OWL lectures), although our replacement with >> the claim that all parents are father or mother is clearly an inadequate >> attempt to avoid the issue. Sigh. >> >> Those who do not care about any of this (but are, strangely, still >> reading this) may also agree that a "soft" topic like human relations is >> generally a poor application scenario for a highly formal specification >> language like OWL. A more technical example would have been a better >> choice, but that was not the self-understanding of the ontology >> community at the time. >> >> 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. >> >> Best wishes, >> 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/>> >> > 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/ >> > @Cmungall/114152616246522594 <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/>, 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/> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > >> > > --- >> > > 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/ >> > > > > -- > > > --- > Marco Neumann > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:06:51 UTC