Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

pá 21. 3. 2025 v 12:45 odesílatel Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
napsal:

> I like the idea of a Community Group to work on examples as proposed by
> Ivan (and one not just for the OWL2 Primer examples). The request
> by Harshvardhan for examples that have "no issues or over which no social,
> ethical, or political discussions are necessary for the adopter as the
> goal" requires more changes than what is described by Sarven as "to appear
> to fall under Class 2". I would find it problematic to classify the
> proposed changes as editorial errors ("minor typographical correction").
>

Takes 6 people to approve a CG.  So that could be an option if those on
this thread wanted to.

Whether or not something is class is quite a subjective thing.  Some folks
are inclined to have that as a huge bucket, others quite narrow.  It can
also be subjective, but if everyone agrees, then that's OK.


>
> Marco
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:34 AM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ---
> Marco Neumann
>
>
>