> > My point is: how do I know which one is more intuitive? I am not
> 100%
> > sure of your intuition. If somebody comes from a linguistic
> background
> > that makes use of passive form much much more than English or
> French,
> > like German, for example, then #2 might be just as intuitive than #1
> > for that person! That is why I am a little bit weary of making this
> > decision.

> I naturally agree with this opinion/fact.

> > We have to consider the audience for that ontology. When making an
> > ontology for, say, the medical domain, the users of that ontology
> will
> > be highly trained professionals, who will accept a certain way of
> > expressing themselves when putting their facts into this ontology
> > framework. The users of this ontology are, however, laypersons who
> may
> > not want to understand too much of these niceties and want their
> work
> > done. This is different, and we may want to abandon a certain level
> of
> > purity for a better acceptance (of course, you might say that
> > laypersons should interact with this ontology via a clever user
> > interface, in which case the issue becomes moot. But we are not yet
> > there... sigh...)

> In that case, we have to make a decision vis-a-vis this tradeoff.

> 1- Restricting the ontology only one way of expression

> 2- Creating inverse properties (composed;composer, etc.) into the
> ontology (like SIOC with parent_of;has_parent etc.).

> In a case or another, we have to make the ontology consistant with
> the choice we will take here for the next revision.

> Personally I think I prefer #2 for Ivan's argumentation and because
> it was my first minding.

> Also, I don't think it is that terrible to have two ways to express
> something.

> One can use both to describe the relationship between two resources.
> If a system want only to use one way or the other, then it only has
> to use some type of inference if available on its system, or to fix
> its triple store accordingly (adding/removing triples that fit some
> criterias).

> So, considering that developers has what they need to manipulate the
> data, I think it would be important to leave this burden to them, and
> to simplify the ontology for users that can have more less knowledge
> than developers that will use the data generated by the ontology.

> What do you think?

> Fred