Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:45 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> pá 21. 3. 2025 v 13:35 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
> napsal:
>
>> On 2025-03-21 12:39, Marco Neumann wrote:
>> > 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").
>>
>> Has anyone suggested that proposed changes are "minor typographical
>> correction" in any way?
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the proposed changes are about the examples in
>> owl-primer (and nothing else) and it is important to understand where
>> that fits within the Process and everything else in order to assess how
>> the changes can be conducted.
>>
>> Once again:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#revised-rec-editorial
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#erratum
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#correction-classes
>>
>>
>> What was outlined is that the proposed changes appear to fall under:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#class-2
>
>
> Seems incredibly clear:
>
> "If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change functionally
> affects interpretation, that change does not fall into this class."
>

So anyone in the world could swing the classification with a single email,
then?

Fwiw Chaals was arguing that redoing the examples is reasonable.

Dan




>
>>
>> which is classified as an "editorial change":
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#editorial-change
>>
>> Quite literally, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> -Sarven
>> https://csarven.ca/#i
>>
>>
>>
>>