Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 10:37 Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

What director?

https://www.w3.org/about/leadership/

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#decisions

The process has been directorless for a while (and not to be confused with
the new Delaware nonprofit umbrella org which has directors).

Dan


> 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
>> <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
>
>
>