`has_Node` is a confusing label for this property

[gaurav]

has_Node (and its subproperties, has_Parent_Node and has_Child_Node) are designed for representing the relationship between an edge and a node. This may be a little confusing with has_Parent and has_Child, which represents the relationship between two nodes in a phylogeny. It might be useful to rename has_Node/has_Parent_Node/has_Child_Node to something that make it clearer that they relate to edges, and are not intended to create sets of things like the similarly named has_Element -- for example, users might expect SetOfNodes to be defined by has_Node rather than has_Element.

[hlapp]

I would question the use of a proliferating set of properties to imbue semantics. Although arguably this has been useful for Linked Data (i.e., if operating, and reasoning if any, at the level of RDF), it's use for OWL reasoning is very limited, especially in comparison to the class-based reasoning enabled if semantics and logical inferences are driven by the type of things (rather than the label of the property that connects them). OWL Ontologies are poor at ER modeling, and shouldn't be designed for that purpose.

So my suggestion would be that the has_Node property not have a domain constraint, and be usable whenever a Node needs to be linked to something.