W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: owl:imports experience: took it out

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:02:01 -0500
Message-ID: <007001c2d474$b7009a00$b6f5d3ce@L565>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

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.

Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 17:02:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC