Guidance for adding inverse properties

[uscholdm]

As noted in issue #106, we generally refrain from defining inverse properties. However, they are often needed in client ontologies. I suggest that we give guidance on what such a property should be called, if needed. That reduces the chances of creating two different inverses for the same property.

If SA folk are creating these inverses, we can use the gist namespace, but not others. Also, it will be a tad awkward to be using a non-gist namespace for the inverse of a gist property. I don't know the right answer for this. Just putting it out there.

This is coming up now because I want to use the property ownedBy.

[DanCarey404]

I don't think there's any way to not use a non-gist namespace for such an inverse. To do otherwise is namespace-squatting.

[uscholdm]

I suppose that's true. Another alternative is for us to provide all of these inverses in a separate file that is optional - like we have done for deprecated things.

[rjyounes]

At the gist issue review meeting today, we decided in general not to define inverses, and at some point clean up the inverses we currently have. Therefore closing this issue and adding new issue to implement.