Re: Is it a redundancy? Indetected inconsistency?

Hi,thanks for your answer.So, the proposed pattern cannot be taken as a  solution for preserving ontology consistency? can we have another solution so as to adapt the new change to the semantics of ontology without any redundancy?Note: perhaps, Jedidi wanted to apply the change, while keeping the semantics of ontology at any cost(adapting the new change to the semantics of ontology is well than cancelling the change even it causes redudancy). have we to apply her solution if we maintain her same priciple?thx in advance for your hints. 

     Le Mardi 10 mars 2015 20h26, Ignazio Palmisano <ipalmisano.mailings@gmail.com> a écrit :
   

 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>
>
>