Re: Is it a redundancy? Indetected inconsistency?

On Mar 10, 2015, at 0:47, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr<mailto:bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>> wrote:

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.

No but it does introduce in satisfiability.

So, we choose as a solution to  introduce a subClassOf (person ObjectUnionOf(animal ObjectUnionOf(woman man)).

But this is not helpful if you have the original axioms. Ie they are equivalent.

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):

If you preserve the original axioms, then there will still be no person who is either a man or a woman.

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).

Without the union with animal, person is unsat.

With the union with animal, the new axiom is redundant.

Thx for answering me those questions?