MagdalenaWolski
commented
6 years ago "Has" and "Is" or "isOf" are both used for object properties. More to the point, to denote that one object property can be the inverse of the other. E.g. "hasParent" is the inverse property of "isParentOf". Semantically, it makes sense to keep "has" or "is" as datatype property as well, since you can model a class saying it has the datatype "hasParent" and/or "isParent". Parent alone would not be semantically expressive.
When we made the trial C2SIM XML Schema we foundontrology classes (or dataTypeProperties) with names like "HasOrderingEntity". To me this seemed like a boolean question: either it has the thing in remainder of name or it does not; but old ontology hand Curt Blais informed the ontologists normally use "is" for Boolean and "has" implies a relationship. At the same time Curt said there is no particular need for the "has" and he could see how using it in a derived XML schema would be confusing. So we need to decide whether to keep "has" (and probably also to use it consistently) in keeping with ontology culture, or drop it in keeping with messaging culture. It is a bad idea for the ontology and XML schema to be different, as they are in v0.6.8 due to my confusion.