- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:13:32 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
NeverProperty is another possibility for bottom. -Alan On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:07 AM, 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. > > 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 14:14:14 UTC