Re: Why this ontology is not marked as inconsistent?

Hi Mauro,

this behavior is perfectly fine as long as Customer and Worker are not
defined as disjoint. It depends on your use case whether you would want to
add this axiom -- in general, nothing prevents a worker from being a
customer at the same time.

Best,
Christian

2015-08-22 18:06 GMT+02:00 Mauro Dragoni <dragoni@fbk.eu>:

> Dear all,
> I'm trying to model some inconsistency examples for working purposes but
> I'm not able to understand why this ontology is not marked as inconsistent
> by the Hermit reasoner through Protege.
>
> Briefly, I defined three concepts "Shop", "Customer", and "Worker".
> A property "hasCustomer" with domain "Shop" and range "Customer".
> Three individuals "S1", "C1", and "W1" of types "Shop", "Customer", and
> "Worker" respectively.
> On the "Shop" concept I defined a universal restriction on the
> "hasCustomer" property.
> Then, on the individual "S1", I instantiated the relationship
> "hasCustomer" with the individual "W1" (type Worker) instead of "C1" (type
> Customer).
>
> So, I expected an inconsistency message by the reasoner about the property
> range.
> Instead, it infers that "W1" is also of type Customer.
>
> I'm trying to figuring it out... but any help is appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mauro.
>
> --
> Dr. Mauro Dragoni
> Post-Doc Researcher at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK-IRST)
> Via Sommarive 18, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy
> Tel. 0461-314053
>
>