Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Dear Ivan, dear all,

I actually think that one could implement what is most urgently needed 
here as a minimal, editorial change. This would force us to stay with 
the family examples, but could still do a lot of good.

For example, Section 4.6 could be updated by replacing the class :Man by 
:Person, and two occurrences of "man" in the surrounding text by 
"person". (My understanding is that the range of :wife would still be 
:Woman according to typical usage, but that can still be discussed.)

Similarly, one could replace "DisjointClasses( :Woman :Man )" by 
DisjointClasses( :Child :Adult ), for example. And so on for other 
issues ... I would also use gender-ambiguous first names for example 
people whose gender does not follow from the ontology.

So, overall, we could restrict ourselves to replacing single 
(non-technical) words, without any changes to the structure of the 
axioms or sentences. This seems very editorial to me, even in "the 
spirit of the law" when applied to a primer.

Of course, we should produce a draft first, both to demonstrate that the 
changes remain editorial across all places, and to allow for a 
cross-check from a broader community. If this seems feasible, Pascal and 
I (and any other of the old editors who are up for it) can set up a 
public repository and propose a draft (or maybe W3C has a repo for us, 
but it would be good to allow public comments).

Cheers,

Markus



On 21.03.25 11:29, Sarven Capadisli 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


-- 
Prof. Dr. Markus Kroetzsch
Knowledge-Based Systems Group
Faculty of Computer Science
TU Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
https://kbs.inf.tu-dresden.de/