Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Hi all,

(cc’ing Florian because I think I need a process expert!)

Thank you Sarven for raising this, looking at the document, I do agree that many of the examples are out of date and simply unhelpful, possibly to the point of being distracting from the content itself. If published today, our code of conduct and general cultural understanding would likely have flagged this in AC review if not earlier.

The mechanism of updating these is obviously a challenge, as Ivan and others have noted, the process has restrictions on this and even though the proposed changes do not impact the document substantively (or shouldn’t if executed well), it is still a change to something that is a recommendation.

We don’t have a process pathway for old recs with outdated examples 😊 (admittedly, some of these were outdated even in 2012!).

The other challenge here is that the examples need to be re-written by people who understand the concepts, and we want the underlying goals and meaning of the document to remain unchanged (in order to keep this a level 2 change). I think the best path is forming a CG of people who have that expertise and interest, have them proposed a revision of this recommendation as a note, and then elevate it to WG with a very tight charter.

@Florian Rivoal<mailto:florian@rivoal.net> sorry to pull you into this thread partway through, but this is a particularly interesting process challenge. Please let us know if any of the suggestions or paths raised in this thread go against the process in any way or if there’s methods we’re missing that could be taken advantage of!

-Wendy

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 at 7:49 AM
To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, semantic-web@w3.org <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tzviya@w3.org>, Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

[EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization.


pá 21. 3. 2025 v 12:45 odesílatel Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/<http://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/<http://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<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