Re: owl:imports experience: took it out

Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
> I understand you Jonathan, we did it like that
> before, and we did similar ambiguous stuff
> before in our entailment test case description.
> I just wanted to say that we took that part of the
> ambiguity out and I also understand that those
> other constructs are not a standard yet.
>

I also understand what your issues are with respect to N3/CWM. "ambiguous"
is a strong word when we are speaking of test cases, however, and I would
like you to define what you mean by "similar ambiguous stuff" -- is this
ambiguous with respect to OWL? Where exactly is the ambiguity *with respect
to OWL alone*?

I have heard folks make statements to the effect that they are uneasy with
owl:imports, but I just don't see the (actual as opposed to theoretical)
issue. I need this spelled out very concretely so that I may better
understand it.

Jonathan