Is it a redundancy? Indetected inconsistency? from Leila Bayoudhi on 2015-03-10 (public-owl-dev@w3.org from January to March 2015)

From: Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:43:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1927201646.2581717.1425948189953.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi,Having already:subClassOf(person animal)DisjointClasses(woman animal )DisjointClasses(man animal)
We want to introduce subClassOf (person ObjectUnionOf(woman man)This may introduce inconsistency.So, we choose as a solution to  introduce a subClassOf (person ObjectUnionOf(animal ObjectUnionOf(woman man)).According to protegé, the ontology is no longer inconsistent. However, it seems as if the ontologist wants at the end to say that:subClassOf (person ObjectUnionOf(woman man): Is it correct what i am saying?
If it is not: is it problem of my proposed solution for maintaining consistency?Am I introducing redundant axioms(though OWL 2 DOES NOT care for this, I care).
Thx for answering me those questions?

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 00:45:09 UTC