Re: Is it a redundancy? Indetected inconsistency?

On 10 March 2015 at 18:56, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:08, Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Thanks all for your answers.
> The proposed solution is taken from ontology design patterns site .
>
>
> I cannot say that I find the description there particulalyr perspicuous.
>
> As the attached figure shows:
>  subClassOf( Carnivorous_plant unionOf(animal, plant)) and we already have
> subClassOf(Carnivorous_plant  , plant)
>
>
> Ok. I don’t think this is what the pattern meant, as that is silly (because
> redundant).
>
> I think that this is the transform:
> Original ontology:
> Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant,
> Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)
> new ontology:
> Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Carnivorous-Plant ⊑(Plant or Animal),
> Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)
>
> The solution:
> Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora,
> Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant,
> Carnivorous-Plant ⊑(Plant or Animal),
> Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)
> is pointless as it’s equivalent to the original ontology.
>
> BTW, this is a terrible pattern for this case. What this tells us is that
> (potentially) *some carnivorous plants are animals and thus not plants*. But
> that’s surely not the intent!
>
> Frankly, I don’t know why anyone would want carnivorous plants to be animals
> :), but presumably the idea is that they are animalesque plants, not that
> there are some that are non-plants.
>

My two cents worth of a guess are on the idea that by 'plant' what is
intended is 'something that does not eat animals', autotroph, 'not a
hunter', and that 'animal' stands for 'heterotroph', 'a hunter',
'something that eats animals or plants'. A carnivorous plant has
characteristics of a plant, in that it /is/ one, but it also has
characteristics of 'animal'.
I'm waving hands a lot here, between my shaky understanding of biology
and the shakiness of the example. It's clearly not a good example for
this pattern, as we're not managing to make heads or tails of the
example, let alone the pattern.
I.

> Now perhaps somewhere you have that all carnivores are animals. That *would*
> be a problem, but the solution is obvious *in that case* and is in fact this
> pattern.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> <Djedidi_LOP2_WOP09.pdf>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 19:24:24 UTC