Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Hi Markus, all,

On 21/03/2025 15:45, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> 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.
that looks like a very reasonable and pragmatic path forward
>
> 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).

I strongly recommend to do this under the aegis of a community group, if 
only to ensure that all contributions are done under the appropriate 
agreement [1] -- otherwise we may have naughty surprises at the moment 
of migrating this back to REC track.

As other pointed out, creating a community group is very easy. But 
otherwise, the RDF-dev CG could be a sensible home for this work (I 
asked the chair, he agrees :-P).

In the meantime, we (the team, the process CG) can figure out whether 
these changes need a WG to be published, or whether it is acceptable for 
the team to do it.

   best

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/cla/
[2] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-dev/

>
> 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
>

Received on Friday, 21 March 2025 17:46:43 UTC