Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

On 2025-03-21 15:12, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

> pá 21. 3. 2025 v 14:34 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca 
> <mailto:info@csarven.ca>> napsal:
> 
>     On 2025-03-21 13:48, Dan Brickley wrote:

>      > So anyone in the world could swing the classification with a single
>      > email, then?
> 
>     I'd certainly hope not, especially when the commenter may have
>     misinterpreted the text.

> Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Just to reiterate clearly from 
> the Process document:
> 
> "If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change 
> functionally affects interpretation, that change does not fall into this 
> class."

If you re-read the quote, you will notice it says *any doubt or 
disagreement as to whether a change functionally affects interpretation*.

> Marco explicitly raised doubt about classifying these changes as 
> editorial. Therefore, regardless of how we individually interpret the 
> specifics,

Marco mentioned "minor typographical correction", but no one made such 
suggestion to begin with. And, as I've explained numerous times now, the 
Process classifies errata with correction classes 1-3. Editorial may be 
1-2. As far as I know, there was no disagreement *as to whether a change 
functionally affects interpretation*. So:

> the existence of this disagreement itself moves it beyond 
> Class 2.

is incorrect, as per the quote you've (cherry-)picked.

Again: even class 3 change doesn't change the bottom line, and rewriting 
examples of a Primer do not go under classes 1,4,5.

I don't doubt that you may have more to say on this topic but I'll 
refrain from repeating myself and will bow out of this sub-thread with you.

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

Received on Friday, 21 March 2025 14:49:46 UTC