Re: Why this ontology is not marked as inconsistent?

Dear All,
thanks for your replies...
Actually, I was sure that I've defined the disjoint between the classes,
but I didn't do it... this is why everything seemed strange to me... :)
I have to stop working during the weekend... :)

Thanks again.
Mauro.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Christian Chiarcos <
christian.chiarcos@web.de> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Mauro Dragoni
Post-Doc Researcher at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK-IRST)
Via Sommarive 18, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy
Tel. 0461-314053