Re: Names for top and bottom properties

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.