Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

pá 21. 3. 2025 v 19:49 odesílatel Chaals Nevile <chaals@fastmail.fm> napsal:

>
>
>
> On Friday, 21 March 2025 18:46:39 (+01:00), Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>
> > Hi Markus, all,
> >
> > On 21/03/2025 15:45, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> This is one approach. The other is a more thorough rewrite of the examples.
>
> My inner W3C process nerd* believes that either way these are clearly
> "class 2" editorial changes (in that they do not impact in any way the
> interpretation or implementation of the specification), and can be made as
> a Revised Recommendation on the authority of the Team in the absence of a
> Working Group.
>

Obviously, there’s disagreement, which means this isn’t Class 2. Examples
don’t just shape interpretation; they also shape implementation, especially
as LLMs increasingly learn from W3C docs.


>
> *(I set up and initially chaired the w3process CG, got the process to
> start evolving again after 7 years of stasis, I was the editor for a few
> years, was part of the AB during the time that the relevant bits of process
> were adopted, and think I qualify as "not completely out there". On the
> other hand, I also made the SVGs that are used to illustrate the lifecycle,
> so there are clear grounds for criticism...)
>
> > > 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.
>
> Absolutely agree. Were I part of the Team or AB, I would definitely advise
> that the Team look for some broad support for the kind of changes being
> proposed rather than simply presenting them as done.
>
> A CG, as recommended below, is probably a good place to develop and get
> broad agreement on a proposed change of this nature...
>
> > >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).
>
> I think the RDF-dev CG is an ideal venue. It falls squarely within its
> stated remit, it has an existing community of relevant people, anyone can
> join or provide input. And if Pierre-Antoine has managed to convince the
> chair that it's reasonable to work on it, we should take advantage of that
> :)
>
> IMHO.
>
> In any case, the next step is probably for at least one {person/group} to
> draft a proposal, and to gather input on what "the community" thinks would
> be a good or bad kind of proposal. (Because without that work, the problem
> turns into a theoretical discussion that can last as long as anyone is
> interested).
>
> There are at least three clear pathways that have been mentioned: the
> original proposal to switch to e.g. the pizza example; Markus' proposal
> here to make a minimal set of changes; or the proposal to annotate the
> examples as a demonstration that modelling the world is hard in part
> because people actually disagree on how they would describe things. And it
> is possible to blend all those proposals into another, in multiple ways.
>
> If there is more than one {person,group} prepared to develop a new
> proposal, then we will have a "beauty contest" on our hands, and the
> RDF-dev CG chair might have to work out how to resolve that and decide a
> winner. Fortunately, that's someone else's problem - and assuming the
> goodwill this community so often demonstrates I doubt it will be a great
> big problem.
>
> So my offer stands to start editing a proposal. I don't yet have a sense
> of which of the above pathways I would prefer.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Charles "Chaals" Nevile
> Using fastmail.fm because it's worth it
>
>