]> 2012-05-28T00:40:17-04:00 CNL Ankesh # In section 5.2, Property Characterisitcs, author chooses to restrict the range and domain of a symmetric property. (My feeling is that symmetric properties would most of the times have the same domain and range, and therefore the rule may not be useful). However my real question is- does this really capture the semantics of symmetric property. Do we not require similar rule as for inverse property. In this case it would be like ''If E has the property P1 whose value is V and the property P1 is 'symmetric' then V has P1 whose value is E''. Or it is enough to say ''If the property P1 is 'symmetric' then P1 is 'inverse of' P2''. # In section 5.3, Class Equivalence, author defines the rule ''If C1 is an equivalent class of C2 and E has C1 whose value is V then E has C1 whose value is V.'' Here, what does '''E has C1''' mean? # This refers to the same quote as above. Why does author choose to show equivalence between classes only when that class is part of an equivalence axiom. i.e. author chooses to say, C1 equivalent to C1 if there-exists C2 such that C1 is equivalent to C2. why is there no need to declare C1 equivalent to C1, for rest of the classes? Shangguan Journal CNLPresentation Question for the Presentation Ankesh Khandelwal Question asked by Question asked Presentation Questions