- From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:27:03 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>, Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABWJn4RJFNFiq5fkZRPY2wj7EuK5iNcqsrj_2ZpxJ1CTsbZojw@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you for the clarification, Ivan. That was my reading of the process. What's entailed in producing a new, updated version of an unchartered or decommissioned WG, e.g., a completed recommendation? Marco On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:06 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > 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 An effort to retroactively change an outdated W3C 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> 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>> 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> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Op 17 mrt 2025, om 14:03 heeft Chaals Nevile < >> chaals@fastmail..fm <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>> 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>> 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>> 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/>> >> 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 > > > -- --- Marco Neumann
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:28:45 UTC