Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

On 2025-03-21 08:32, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Good morning Sarven,

Morning! =)

>> On 20 Mar 2025, at 19:45, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On 2025-03-19 09:50, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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.

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the examples in the Primer are 
meant to help the reader better understand the TRs it references. 
Examples are not functional changes. However, the current examples make 
it harder to understand and apply the proposed work correctly, rather 
than helping.

> 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'm not sure how relevant it is to compare a Primer's status today to 
its past. As it stands, owl-primer is a Recommendation, which means it 
follows the corresponding Process, and carries the patents assigned at 
the time ( https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ ).

That said, and because of 
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#revised-rec-editorial , 
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#erratum , each change 
corresponds to a correction class - and in this case, the changes that 
are under consider appear to fall under 
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#class-2 .

The changes to the examples do not fundamentally alter the meaning of 
the Primer. Given the nature of a Primer, any change will typically fall 
under correction class 1 or 2.

As I see it, there is no specific guideline stating that the number of 
changes or as a collection holds any significance under the Process. 
After all, a correction (class 2) change could be introduced 
incrementally - e.g., one per month - without the notion of a 
"fundamental rewrite" applying.

>> 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!).

Just to be clear, when I said "technical", I was referring to the 
mechanical process of modifying the document, e.g., "changing example 
Foo corresponds to correction class 2". That aspect, without considering 
the content (semantics) of the change, is purely technical.

As I see it, that alone is sufficient justification for the change.

However, I also wanted to add to the technical argument by emphasising 
that the *necessity* for this change is ethically grounded in W3C's work 
(and I don't mean to speak for anyone, so take this as an opinion if 
anything):

The application of the W3C Conduct is not limited to individual 
behaviour and interactions within the community. It also extends to the 
work that is communicated to the world. Additional examples:

Ensuring that examples in specifications are inclusive and considerate 
of all individuals aligns with the W3C's commitment to Ethical Web 
Principles ( https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/ ).

The Societal Impact Questionnaire ( 
https://w3ctag.github.io/societal-impact-questionnaire/ ) encourages 
specification authors and reviewers to critically assess the broader 
implications of their work, prompting considerations of how content, 
including examples, may affect various groups.

Yet another example is with the Vision for W3C ( 
https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/ ), with the aim to ensure that the web 
is a place where everyone can participate.

>> 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.

I'd suggest reviewing the proposal (that's yet to be officially made) as 
an erratum and on values-driven grounds, as it seems to be the simplest 
and most applicable option. If that doesn't hold up due to the Process 
or other constraints, I assume the community will follow W3C's 
recommended approach. (Setting up a WG is a lengthy and costly process, 
but that's beside the point here.)

I'd also add that the initial OWL WG charter ( 
https://web.archive.org/web/20070920135644/https://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html 
) operated under an earlier version of the Process ( 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ ). However, the current 
state of the charter ( https://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html ) now 
references the latest Process ( https://www.w3.org/policies/process/ ).

The errata for owl-primer can be tracked at 
https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL_Errata


Would love to hear PAC’s or the team’s thoughts on this!

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

I appreciate that as well and would love to know more. Thank you.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i