- From: Nick Drummond <nick.drummond@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: 31 Mar 2008 13:59:08 +0100
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
We've used "Property/Role Characteristics" in the tools. Nick On Mar 29 2008, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Marco Colombetti wrote: > > > Thank you, Bijan. > > > > In "The even more irresistible etc." it is said that "the roles > > knows, hasSibling, and properPartOf, should be *declared* as, > > respectively, reflexive, irreflexive, and antisymmetric." (I think > > I found other examples of this use of "declare," but I don't > > remember where.) In the rest of the paper, however, reflexivity > > axioms etc. are called "role assertions." > > So they didn't call them "declarations". Seems a harmless stylistic > choice to me (i would find calling them declarations more > objectionable). I don't much care for "role assertion", but oh well. > > (Consider "should be asserted as". That just doesn't scan well.) > > > I agree that (Tbox/Rbox) "axiom" is the correct term, and that > > "(class/property) assertion" should be reserved to Abox axioms, but > > it would be useful to have a more specialized term that covers > > exactly those property axioms that are called "role assertions" in > > the above mentioned paper. > > > > Any suggestion? > > I don't think it's all that useful, esp. if one is trying to rigidly > distinguishing it from e.g., subproperty axioms. They are all part of > the RBox. > > But coin your own. I sincerely we'll get much convergence. (See the > use of 'role' and 'property' the latter which is in conflict with the > common use of property to also include unary predicates.) > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 15:23:58 UTC