Re: Is it a redundancy? Indetected inconsistency?

Hi,Thanks all for your answers. The proposed solution is taken from ontology design patterns site . As the attached figure shows: subClassOf( Carnivorous_plant unionOf(animal, plant)) and we already have subClassOf(Carnivorous_plant  , plant)Does this at end means that  subClassOf(Carnivorous_plant plant)   (this is according to the reasoner since subClass(A B) subclass(A C) ==> subClass(A intersectionOf(B C)).So is this solution correct? or does it propose a redundant axiom?Thanks for answering me.   

     Le Mardi 10 mars 2015 9h25, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
   

 On Mar 10, 2015, at 0:47, "Leila Bayoudhi" <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?