Re: Replace outdated social models in OWL2 primer

po 24. 3. 2025 v 11:54 odesílatel Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
napsal:

> Hi All.
> Thank you for all your responses. I'm touched and delighted that the
> community 'cares' and that this isn't a topic that is simply brushed
> aside. I am replying to the original email so as to summarise the
> discussions so far, and identify a path forward.
>
> tldr; let's create a CG, make a document with updated examples, ask W3C
> to adopt it -- preferably with RDF or other relevant WGs, publish a new
> dated version and point the TR/REC link to this.
>

+1 create a CG sounds good

The link to do this can be found here:  https://www.w3.org/community/


>
> 1) I think there is a general consensus that the examples should be
> updated.
>
> 2) There is some disagreement on the nature of this update and its
> classification in W3C process e.g. is this merely editorial? Here we
> acknowledge that the examples are in a 'REC' document, and that this
> also determines the process for any change/update.
>
> 3) Options suggested so far include:
>
> a. directly change the document -- easiest, but not a good option
> because it is a published REC document and it should be maintained
>
> b. publish a new version -- most cumbersome, but probably the best
> option as the history is preserved, we follow w3c best practices re.
> publishing with a different dated version
>
> c. create another separate webpage for examples and link to it -- not
> ideal, the existing examples will still be present and 'canonical' and
> we'll be saying this is REC but don't use it which is not good practice
>
> 4) From the above, I think option (b) is the most logical choice. The
> discussion after this reflected the process by which this new version
> can be published -- whether we can classify this as a minor change (less
> redtape, quicker) or this classifies as a significant change (has to go
> through CG/WG and approval process).
>
> 5) So from the above, I suggest we create the CG, then within it create
> a mirror document of the OWL primer with updated examples, and suggest
> it back to the W3C for incorporation. It will need to go through a WG
> (AFAIK) -- and I hope one of the existing ones picks this up to push it
> ahead (e.g. RDF-star WG would be closest?).
>
> 6) The CG is also a good option, because we can also see if there are
> other documents with similar issues - and if so, what are they and what
> should be the fix. At the same time, we can recommend some inclusivity
> principles / codes of decency to be added to existing W3C guidelines for
> how to create examples. We don't want everyone to read them before
> creating every single example, but they should be helpful if such an
> issue arises again elsewhere.
>
> 7) The CG is also again a good option as the W3C is currently exploring
> how to promote CGs outputs and how to smooth the process of uptaking CG
> work within W3C (WG, etc.). So this will also be helpful for other CGs
> and communities by providing a path to test the work done here so far.
>
> 8) Why CG and not a WG: With the CG, anyone can participate, we get a
> github repo to track this work (formally), and its all in w3c. A WG is
> also a good option, but I am not sure whether updating a single document
> with examples should be a new WG.
>
> Regards, Harsh
>
> On 15/03/2025 18:32, Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote:
> > Hi All.
> > While revisiting the OWL2 primer recently at https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-
> > primer/, I found several examples for showing how OWL2 works that try to
> > model social constructs like man/woman, parent/child, father/mother in a
> > way that I consider increasingly out of touch with today. I propose that
> > these be changed to something that has no issues or over which no
> > social, ethical, or political discussions are necessary for the adopter
> > as the goal here is to show how OWL2 works.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > E.g. Sec 4.2 Suppose we also want to state that all mothers are women:
> > SubClassOf( :Mother :Woman )
> >
> > Here, it represents that mother is a strict subset of woman i.e. only
> > women can be mothers. However, "Woman" here is referring to "woman as a
> > human of female sex" and not "woman as gender". Rather than get into
> > what these definitions should be, or what kind of sets exist and their
> > intersections (e.g. woman, trans-woman, trans-man, intersex, and so on)
> > - my point is that these are not good examples to start modelling with
> > even if they might have been seen as "intuitive" some decades ago.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > E.g. Sec 4.3 For example, if we consider the classes Man and Woman, we
> > know that no individual can be an instance of both classes (for the sake
> > of the example, we disregard biological borderline cases)...
> > DisjointClasses( :Woman :Man )
> >
> > Again, we should not exclude anyone here just because they are 'on the
> > fringes' and also because there are ways people can change their sex and
> > their gender -- so this example is not a good example to use here.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > E.g. Sec 4.6 For instance, the statement that B is the wife of A
> > obviously implies that B is a woman while A is a man.
> > ObjectPropertyDomain( :hasWife :Man )
> > ObjectPropertyRange( :hasWife :Woman ) ... Having these two axioms in
> > place and given e.g. the information that Sasha is related to Hillary
> > via the property hasWife, a reasoner would be able to infer that Sasha
> > is a man and Hillary a woman.
> >
> > While I don't know what is the canonical name for people who are not
> > married (partner?) or who are in a same-sex/gender relationship -- this
> > is again a good point to note that the example has implications beyond
> > OWL and shouldn't be used here.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > E.g. Sec 5.1 The following example states that the class Mother consists
> > of exactly those objects which are instances of both Woman and Parent
> > EquivalentClasses(
> >     :Mother
> >     ObjectIntersectionOf( :Woman :Parent )
> >   )
> >
> > Again, this has more implications to consider such as transgender
> > mothers and also motherhood following sex-change. Therefore, this is not
> > a good example to learn about how OWL.
> >
> > We also have in Sec 10
> > SubClassOf(
> >     :Father
> >     ObjectIntersectionOf( :Man :Parent )
> >   )
> >
> > ---
> >
> > E.g. Sec 5.1 we could characterize the class of all parents as the union
> > of the classes Mother and Father
> > EquivalentClasses(
> >     :Parent
> >     ObjectUnionOf( :Mother :Father )
> >   )
> >
> > Parents are not exclusive to mothers and fathers e.g. stepmother or
> > grandparent, or even non-biological parents (though they would be called
> > the same). Further, it might be seen as saying parents are always a
> > combination of a mother and a father - though this is not in the text or
> > the rule. (I'll note that in Sec.9 the concept "SocialRole" is stated as
> > a metaclass of Father, but isn't defined or explained)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Is this change urgent? No. Is this outright offending anyone? I don't
> > think so. But should we change this? Yes, I think so. Each year there
> > will be many more new people and newer generations learning OWL, and
> > many of us relearning it. So we shouldn't wait for this to be an issue
> > either for being out of touch or for not being considerate before we
> > change it.
> >
> > So what do we change this with? I think examples with animals (cats,
> > dogs), shapes, etc. are universal, and aren't at risk of not conforming
> > to society or for not being empathic. Or if we still want to model
> > people, let's do friendships and work relationships that have no
> > personal characteristics. For OWL specifically, I think the Pizza
> > ontology used as a tutorial in Protege is also a good option as
> > everybody likes pizza! (well, I hope).
>
> --
> ---
> Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
> Assistant Professor
> ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University
> https://harshp.com/
>
>
>