Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Hi,

I am catching this thread along the way, and have not yet read all the 
background, so my apologies if I misunderstand or misstate something.

Example are non-normative text. Changing them, even extensively, is 
indeed a class 2 change. Editorial is defined to be both class 1 and 2, 
and for editorial changes, we do have a fair bit of flexibility for 
maintenance.

* If we have a Working Group chartered to maintain the spec (or are 
willing to create one), it can republish the REC with very little 
overhead if all the changes are class 1 or 2: as long as no-one in the 
group objects, a simple group decision is enough to publish an update. 
No wide review, no DoC, no implementation report, no update/transition 
request… Just update the ED, decide to publish, and do so. See current 
process §6.3.11.2 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#revised-rec-editorial>. If we do 
have a WG, a parallel CG is not at all expected by the Process, and 
would seem to me like additional complexity: just get the right people 
in the WG and do the work there.

* If we do not have (nor want) a WG chartered to maintain the spec, it's 
currently not hard either: « If there is no Working Group 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#GroupsWG> chartered to maintain a 
Recommendation <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsW3C>, the Team 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#team> /may/ republish the 
Recommendation <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsW3C> with such 
changes incorporated, including errata and Team corrections.. » See 
current process §6.3.11.2 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#revised-rec-editorial>. And the 
Team is very welcome to take input from a CG in order to do that (though 
I would expect the Team to apply judgement when picking proposed changes 
from the CG: the Team, not the CG, would be accountable for these changes).

Earlier in the thread, someone noted this ability, and the phrase about 
including errata and corrections. That's phrase is not relevant here. 
The sentence establishes the Team's broad ability to do editorial (class 
1 and 2) changes, and this "including errata and corrections" phrase is 
merely a reminder that Team/candidate/proposed corrections are part of 
class 2 (once formally adopted, they'll be class 3, but the annotation 
indicating an intent to change is class 2).

However, note that the Team's ability to maintain RECs without a Working 
Group is expected to be a little more constrained if/when the upcoming 
Process update is adopted.  See draft process §6.2.6 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#no-group-maintenance>:

> For all types of technical reports 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#recs-and-notes> and all 
> maturity stages 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#maturity-stages>, if 
> there is no group 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#chartered-group> 
> chartered to maintain a technical report 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#technical-report>, the 
> Team <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#team> /may/ 
> republish it at the same maturity stage 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#maturity-stages>, 
> integrating as needed:
>
>  1. class 1 changes
>     <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#correction-classes>;
>  2. inline errata <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#erratum>;
>  3. candidate corrections
>     <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#candidate-correction>,
>     which /must/ be marked as Team correction;
>  4. class 2 changes
>     <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#correction-classes>
>     other than inline errata
>     <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#erratum> and Team
>     corrections
>     <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#team-correction>.
>
> To avoid any potential doubt or disagreement about whether changes 
> really do fall into class 2 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#correction-classes>, the 
> Team <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#team> /should/ be 
> conservative, limiting itself to obvious and limited fixes, and /must/ 
> avoid substantial rephrasing, even of non-normative examples and 
> notes. If any such change is desired, the Team 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#team> /must/ mark it as a 
> Team correction 
> <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#team-correction>.
>
So, under that Process, the Team would be able to put edited examples 
into the spec, but not simply replace the outdated ones: you'd need both 
the old text and the proposed replacement (typically styled as described 
in https://w3c.github.io/tr-design/src/README#amendment), waiting for an 
eventual WG to approve and fold them in.

Also, a note on the Process notion of an erratum. An erratum isn't a 
correction, it's merely a note that one is needed. They can be 
maintained outside of the spec, or as annotations inside the spec. 
Inline errata, about any part of the text, normative or not, are always 
class 2, and so either by the Team or by a WG, under the current process 
or the next, are trivial to maintain. The earlier discussion is about 
fixes, not just notes of bugs.


Now, all of the above is generic commentary that is meant to apply to 
any spec. Now that I'm looking at owl-primer specifically, I am quite 
confused as to how this is a REC in the first place, as it seems to 
contain no normative statement, and to be entirely examples. I am 
probably missing something, but it seems to me it would have been more 
appropriate (even under the then-current 2005 Process) to publish a 
primer as a Note rather than a REC. That said, now that it has been 
published as a REC, the document cannot simply be republished as as Note 
under the same identity (see Process 6.6 
<https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#switching-tracks>). We could, 
however, start a new Note, as a separate document with a separate 
identity, and mark the existing REC as superseded by it.

As long as the document contains no normative statement, maintaining it 
as a Note or a REC does not make that much of a difference, as all you 
need to publish is a group decision. One advantage for the Note is that 
it could be maintained as an IG or a WG, while RECs can only be handled 
by WGs. IGs can be set up with broader participation than WGs (see 
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#ig-mail-only), and even for those 
who could join a WG as well, joining an IG might be easier: the IPR 
implications are much more limited (thanks to the lack of normative 
document), making it easier to join for IPR-sensitive companies. But 
that may not be worth the overhead of starting a whole new document and 
marking the other one as superseded.

Then again, we might be forced down this path: it is possible that the 
oddity of an examples-only REC might cause some AC Reps to object to WG 
being chartered to maintain them, in which case chartering an IG to 
write and maintain a new Note, and marking the REC as supersede with the 
Note is possibly the only sustainable path forward.

I hope this is helpful. If not, please point me at the part of the 
discussion I overlooked.

—Florian



On 2025/03/21 21:05, Reid, Wendy wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> (cc’ing Florian because I think I need a process expert!)
>
> Thank you Sarven for raising this, looking at the document, I do agree 
> that many of the examples are out of date and simply unhelpful, 
> possibly to the point of being distracting from the content itself. If 
> published today, our code of conduct and general cultural 
> understanding would likely have flagged this in AC review if not earlier.
>
> The mechanism of updating these is obviously a challenge, as Ivan and 
> others have noted, the process has restrictions on this and even 
> though the proposed changes do not impact the document substantively 
> (or shouldn’t if executed well), it is still a change to something 
> that is a recommendation.
>
> We don’t have a process pathway for old recs with outdated examples 
> 😊(admittedly, some of these were outdated even in 2012!).
>
> The other challenge here is that the examples need to be re-written by 
> people who understand the concepts, and we want the underlying goals 
> and meaning of the document to remain unchanged (in order to keep this 
> a level 2 change). I think the best path is forming a CG of people who 
> have that expertise and interest, have them proposed a revision of 
> this recommendation as a note, and then elevate it to WG with a very 
> tight charter.
>
> @Florian Rivoal <mailto:florian@rivoal.net> sorry to pull you into 
> this thread partway through, but this is a particularly interesting 
> process challenge. Please let us know if any of the suggestions or 
> paths raised in this thread go against the process in any way or if 
> there’s methods we’re missing that could be taken advantage of!
>
> -Wendy
>
> *From: *Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, March 21, 2025 at 7:49 AM
> *To: *Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, semantic-web@w3.org 
> <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman 
> <tzviya@w3.org>, Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, Pierre-Antoine 
> Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer
>
> *[EXTERNAL] *This message comes from an external organization.
>
> pá 21. 3. 2025 v 12:45 odesílatel Marco Neumann 
> <marco.neumann@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>     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").
>
> Takes 6 people to approve a CG.  So that could be an option if those 
> on this thread wanted to.
>
> Whether or not something is class is quite a subjective thing.  Some 
> folks are inclined to have that as a huge bucket, others quite 
> narrow.  It can also be subjective, but if everyone agrees, then 
> that's OK.
>
>     Marco
>
>     On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:34 AM Sarven Capadisli
>     <info@csarven.ca> 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/
>         <http://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/
>         <http://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
>         <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
>
>
>     -- 
>
>
>
>     ---
>     Marco Neumann
>