Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

Ah, yes, okay. I see I have mixed that up with the Delaware W3C, Inc. 2023
director status in the USA.



On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 10:43 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>

-- 


---
Marco Neumann