Issue proposed by Martin Doerr (p.c) -- 8 August 2024
remove all inverse labels from FOL statements. Use reverseorder of arguments instead.
Motivation for proposal:
a) confusing ambiguity
b) missing semantics of the inverse label in FOL
c) incompatibility with KR models that do not have two names for one property
Nb.
A quick search in CRMbase 7_2_5 after 'i(' results in 29 matches.
e.g:
P50(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [[E10(z) ∧ P30i(x,z) ∧ P29(z,y)] ∧
¬ (∃w) [E10(w) ∧ P30i(x,w) ∧ P28(w,y) ∧ P182(z,w)]]
and
P73(x,y) ⇒ P130i(x,y)
The other way round '(y,' returns 41 matches many of which are in complex FOLs and do not represent inverse.
So the 'i'-notation is clearly used. It is better to switch the order of the arguments. It is also a question if one should switch the order in the label or just use the i. It has been discussed but no formal editorial decision exists. We should should get rid of the 'i' notation in the FOLs.