Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Good morning Sarven,

> On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:45, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> 
> On 2025-03-19 09:50, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Hi Ivan, Tzviya, and Wendy, please correct me if I'm wrong:
> 
> As per current W3C Process's Revising a Recommendation: Editorial Changes ( https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#revised-rec-editorial ):
> 
> >If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain a Recommendation, the Team may republish the Recommendation with such changes incorporated, including errata and Team corrections.
> 

That is correct, but...


> Errata include correction classes 1-3. I believe the changes discussed in this thread ( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2025Mar/0045.html ) for https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ fall under correction class 2 ( https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#class-2 ):
> 
> >Changes that do not functionally affect interpretation of the document

… that is not clear at all in this case. At least not for me. 

The problem I see is that this Primer is labeled as a Recommendation. Seen from today, this is very unusual. Most primers I know (at least nowadays) are published as WG Notes. Indeed, there is no really actionable, normative statement in a Primer, and I do not know what would be, e.g., the acceptable CR exit criteria. (I remember this was the subject of a discussion in the OWL WG, but I do not remember all the arguments…)

You may argue that, by the "letter of the law", and exactly because there are no normative statements, all changes are simply editorial, therefore your aforementioned rule applies. 

However, in my (personal) opinion, reworking all the examples in the primer document represents, essentially, a fundamental rewrite of a Recommendation and, by the "spirit of the law", this should only be done under the supervision of a chartered Working Group. Not by the team.

> 
> I also believe that the reasons for these changes - raised with general consensus by multiple community members - are not merely technical but extend to expected professional practice, as outlined in the Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Conduct ( https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/ ).
> 

I agree that the changes are not merely technical; I would actually argue that the reasons for the changes are not technical at all. I have not seen anyone arguing on the thread that the document is technically wrong.

Wendy or Tzviya were more closely involved with the formulation of the CoC, their words have much more weight on that than mine. Suffices it to say that, for me, that connection is quite a stretch (without diminishing the importance of the original problem leading to this thread or the CoC!).

> I suspect the broader W3C and standards community would welcome the changes discussed in this thread, and I'm sure there's a way to make it work within the process. However, if this is not deemed a class 2 change, it would be great to have AB's advice on this.
> 
> Irrespective of the actual path forward (whether editorial, through a Working Group, or otherwise), it might help the community to set up a workspace where the proposal can take shape (e.g., https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ and GitHub?). Would you be able to follow up on this in https://github.com/w3c/strategy/ or coordinate with the Team elsewhere?

We have community groups for that kind of thing. If there are enough people interested in the subject, a CG can be formed and jointly create a CG report with a proposed alternative to the OWL Primer. Though such a draft does not have the same weight as a Recommendation, the CG can then propose a short-lived WG with a very focussed charter to turn that new primer into a recommendation. If the AC accepts that, then issue is solved. W3C already has the structures needed for this.

That being said, I believe if we open this issue, the problem of the normative status of the document will come to the fore during the vote of the AC. But that will be a discussion for a later day.

Cheers

Ivan

P.S. I cc this mail to Pierre-Antoine. I am not in charge of the W3C Data activity anymore, he is...

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Sarven
> https://csarven.ca/#i


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43