- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:39:48 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- 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>
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. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 22:38:07 UTC