Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Hi Florian, you are reading it more or less in the spirit of the thread.
You hint at the issue of the Primer being a REC and that it can't be
changed without some due diligence. That is the current state of the thread..

Now, and this may go beyond the thread but while reading a bit more about
the current and former W3C recommendation process, I noticed that the W3C
director can decide a process decision or community opinion (even though it
implies that a consensus has been reached) and act unilaterally. Is this
"presidential" or somewhat autocratic option still at the W3C director's
disposal?

Marco

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 4:35 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> 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 <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>
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, March 21, 2025 at 7:49 AM
> *To: *Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> <info@csarven.ca>,
> semantic-web@w3.org <semantic-web@w3.org> <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ivan
> Herman <ivan@w3.org> <ivan@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tzviya@w3.org>
> <tzviya@w3.org>, Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>
> <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
> <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/ ).
> >>
> >
> > 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
> <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
>
>

-- 


---
Marco Neumann