comesFromPlace and goesToPlace

[dylan-sa]

The text definitions for comesFromPlace and goesToPlace are 'origin' and 'destination', respectively. hasOrigin and hasDestination strike me as better names for these properties. Here are a few reasons:

1. The range of each property includes Address in addition to Place, so the current names are potentially misleading.
2. hasDestination seems slightly more general than goesToPlace, which could make it more reusable. For instance, it seems fine to say that a travel request has New York City as its destination, but not that the travel request goes to New York City.
3. The proposed names also seem more intuitive and common in ordinary speech.

Are there good reasons to keep the names as is?

I see some previous discussion of hasOrgin and hasDestination here.

[pppelll]

(I think i brought this up when the linked issue was discussed)
"destination," to me, implies too much intention. An airplane might have a flight path JFK - LAX and get diverted to MSP. The destination is LAX, but the end of the journey was MSP. I think using hasTerminus could skirt this issue.

[rjyounes]

@dylan-sa We distinguish comesFrom/goesToPlace from comesFrom/goesToAgent. hasOrigin and hasDestination would confuse that distinction, but I agree with your other points. We could reconsider collapsing the two sets of predicates as in the issue you cite.

@pppelll I also like the point about intentionality of "destination." Perhaps just comesFrom and goesTo if we are going to collapse the agent/place sets.

[rjyounes]

See also issue #1024. Possibly hasRecipient/hasGiver could be used across the board for the agent predicates since we seem to have no clear and consistent way to distinguish them from comesFrom/goesToAgent.