links names

[arademaker]

After reading #28 I believe we have a cognitive problem. The names of the relations are very unintuitive and this can generate errors. w and g are clear but drf or prf or even ihyper or ihypo are not self-explained and this slows me down, I have to keep looking at the list of types in https://github.com/own-pt/wordnet-dsl/blob/master/conf/links.txt. Not to mention the question of the directionality that always confuses me: if hyper: X is has-hyper or is-hyper-of. I think we need to improve these names of links.

[fcbr]

The directionality is the same as PWN. I.e., a @ b means a has-hyper b. But we can always improve the mnemonics!

[arademaker]

I believe has-hyper: X will not generate doubt, or like https://www.w3.org/TR/wordnet-rdf/#intrown did with hyponymOf relation