- From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:04:22 +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: <CABWJn4QXVuMyN8=v9xoFM=VkAESSUg_FdYqhNeMbtUvUDV35sA@mail.gmail.com>
This sounds very reasonable to me, Ivan. Marco On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:50 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 19 Mar 2025, at 09:27, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > > > It depends on the changes. Simple (ie, grammatical, markup, etc) changes > can be done directly by the staff. But a more comprehensive change (which > is certainly the case for the issue discussed in the thread) can be done by > a chartered Working Group only. > > Ivan > > > > 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 An effort to retroactively change an outdated W3C 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 > > > > > ---- > 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 09:09:55 UTC