- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:17:02 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, 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>
Hi, I propose we go for the pragmatic solution, and just use the words we (as WG) already use to refer to these properties: topProperty and bottomProperty. Although I really am all for 'pronouncable' property names (which I heard Alan advocate), I believe these only confuse matters in this case (as Bijan and Chris suggest). Also, the possibleProperty does not cover the semantics of the top property, as the top property relates all individuals, not possibly, but actually. -Rinke On 30 apr 2008, at 00:42, Sandro Hawke 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! > > >>> A hasSomethingOrNothingToDoWith B >>> >>> A doesOrDoesNotRelateTo B >>> >>> by construction neither of these can be false (assuming excluded >>> middle)... > > Which makes me think: > > A mayRelateTo B (or mayBeRelatedTo) > and > A possibleProperty B > A possibleAssociate B > >>> then the bottom would have to be >>> >>> A doesAndDoesNotRelateTo B > > which makes me think: > > A mustNotRelateTo B > and > A impossibleProperty B > A impossibleAssociate B > > I'm new to top/bottom, so forgive me if these say/mean the wrong > thing. > I'm just brainstorming. > > -- Sandro ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:17:36 UTC