On 18/03/13 20:18, Joshua TAYLOR wrote:
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]?
Correct.
Pellet is happy the the ontology is consistent so long as you ignore the
broken owl:equivalentClass usage that I've already mentioned.
Dave
