- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:07:31 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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. Ian On 30 Apr 2008, at 15:03, Diego Calvanese wrote: > I also like UniversalProperty. > An opposite could be EmptyProperty. > > - Diego > > On 30 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Markus Krötzsch wrote: >> On Mittwoch, 30. April 2008, Conrad Bock wrote: >>> Ian, >>> >>> UniversalProperty and NullProperty. >>> >>> Conrad >> >> "UniversalProperty" sounds nice, "NullProperty" not really, and >> the obvious >> relatedness/symmetry is lost. Given that there is no good opposite >> of "universal", I would also vote for "TopProperty" and >> "BottomProperty". >> >> Markus >> >> -- >> Markus Krötzsch >> Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe >> phone +49 (0)721 608 7362 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998 >> mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de www http://korrekt.org > > -- > Diego Calvanese > Faculty of Computer Science e-mail: calvanese@inf.unibz.it > Free University of Bozen-Bolzano phone: +39-0471 016 160 > Piazza Domenicani 3 fax: +39-0471 016 009 > I-39100 Bolzano-Bozen BZ, Italy http://www.inf.unibz.it/ > ~calvanese/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:08:08 UTC