Hey @w3c, what's the process for updating the OWL 2 Primer so it doesn't erase gay marriage?
-
Hey @w3c, what's the process for updating the OWL 2 Primer so it doesn't erase gay marriage?
It's riven with problems, but this is a particularly odious passage:
"For instance, the statement that B is the wife of A obviously implies that B is a woman while A is a man.”
I understand reaching for an example that you think is simple but this is just so ugly.
-
Hey @w3c, what's the process for updating the OWL 2 Primer so it doesn't erase gay marriage?
It's riven with problems, but this is a particularly odious passage:
"For instance, the statement that B is the wife of A obviously implies that B is a woman while A is a man.”
I understand reaching for an example that you think is simple but this is just so ugly.
@w3c I mean even this is just some rank reductive bullshit:
"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)”
Before someone accuses me of attempting to enforce my politics or views on the documentation, what do you think is encoded in the documentation right now?
-
@w3c I mean even this is just some rank reductive bullshit:
"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)”
Before someone accuses me of attempting to enforce my politics or views on the documentation, what do you think is encoded in the documentation right now?
@w3c This is quite frankly embarrassing. I realise that it was published 13 years ago, and there appears to no longer be a WG working actively on OWL. All the same, that nonsense is published still with no caveats or discussion so you're endorsing it.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
