On 30 Apr 2008, at 15:07, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > I would be fine with either Top/Bottom or Universal/Empty Property. > > Trying to dream up names that make sense in assertions of the form > A property B seems a bit pointless to me -- surely we don't expect > ontologies to contain this kind of assertion given that they are > either vacuous or inconsistent. Additionally, while I might be mistaken, I don't know of any such names in other literature. Given their somewhat special status, it's probably wise not to throw up additional barrier to learning about them by coining entirely new *sorts* of name. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:15:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC