On Mar 10, 2015, at 21:31, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr<mailto:bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>> wrote: Hi, thanks for your answer. So, the proposed pattern cannot be taken as a solution for preserving ontology consistency? Since you go from inconsistent/incoherent to consistent/coherent, you aren't preserving the consistency state. can we have another solution so as to adapt the new change to the semantics of ontology without any redundancy? I think the proposal works. So does dropping the disjointness. So does dropping the problematic subsumption and other remodelings. I don't understand why this is a pattern at all. If I have an obvious modelling flaw like this I want to fix the modelling not "work around it". Note: perhaps, Jedidi wanted tto 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. I guess the vacuous extension could be a hint that you wanted both of then but didn't know how to resolve it. But I'd rather write an annotation.
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:38:53 UTC