On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Brian McBride <[email protected]> wrote: > I spotted an inconsistency in the ontology. > > #NewsOrganization has a restriction: > > [[ > > <rdfs:subClassOf> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#associatedWith" /> > <owl:maxCardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0 > </owl:maxCardinality> > </owl:Restriction> > </rdfs:subClassOf> > > ]] > > Thus #NewsOrganization can have an #associatedWith property, i.e. is within > the domain of #associatedWith. The domain of #associatedWith is #Person. > #Organization is disjoint with #Person. #NewsOrganization is a subclass > of #Organization. > > The ontology is thus inconsistent.
Wouldn't the maxCardinality 0 mean that every NewsOrganization isn't associatedWith *anything*, so there should never be a [newsOrgX associatedWith foo] to use with [associatedWith domain Person] to infer [newsOrgX a Person]? //JT -- Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/
