W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Names for top and bottom properties

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:39:48 +0100
Message-Id: <C14A1DCC-E6AD-44AF-87C1-CA12D8B5D08E@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Rees Jonathan <jar@creativecommons.org>, Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 29 Apr 2008, at 23:25, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> Last week it was agreed in principle that we should add these  
>> properties, but we need to find suitable names for them.  
>> Suggestions in an email please!
>> Ian
> Here's some responses from a query I sent out.
> Jonathan's tickle my fancy the most.
> UR or universallyRelatedTo works too. Not sure what the bottom  
> equiv for this is. NR? for notRelatedTo?
> I can see the merit of the proposal to leave them ungrammatical as  
> a warning, as Chris suggests, though that wouldn't be my preference.

I think aiming for grammaticality might be an anti-pattern here.  
Similarly, I think owl:Thing and owl:Nothing to be *wretched* names.

In most logical notations, these are special designated symbols and  
it's really good when they aren't easily conflatable with domain  
predicates. Hence _|_ instead of Bot (in logical notations).

I wouldn't say it's a *warning*, but it's possible to make things  
*too* comfortable for the user such that you don't unstick  
misreadings or signal that they should really read the documentation  
instead of relying on their intuitions.

Plus, I think they should be *names* instead of sneaking the logical  
tautologies into the name.

TopProperty and BottomProperty seem just fine.

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 22:38:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC