Protege 4.1中的OWL本体和不良个体不一致

Question

I designed for homework an OWL ontology using Protege 4.1 about creatures (creatures classification), after reasoning with Hermit or Fact i'm getting inconsistent ontology, bad individuals , but I'm very new to OWL ontologies and don't understand how to solve these errors about inconsistency and individuals.

Edit1 :

---

My Class hierarchy looks like this:

 Thing Plante Vietuitoare VietuitoareDenumireStiintifica Specii Vertebrate Reptile Pesti Pasari Mamifere Nevertebrate Moluste Interertebrate Insecte Hrana Ierbivor Carnivor Omnivor Deplasare Inot Taratoare Picioare Biped Patruped Poliped Aripi Habitat Acvatic Campie Padure Munte PartiAnatomice SiraSpinarii Aripa InvelisExterior Cochilie Solzi Blana Pene RelatieAsociere RelatieCuOm Domestice Salbatice RelatieCuAlteAnimale Singuratate GrupuriMici Haite Carduri GrupuriMari Stoluri Colonii 

These are the axioms from the Hot Spot tab in the Explanation box :

 Carnivor EquivalentTo (Mananca only Vietuitoare) or (Mananca only (faceParteDin some Vietuitoare)) Ierbivor EquivalentTo (Mananca only Plante) or (Mananca only (faceParteDin some Plante)) 

---

Bellow are two links with the .owl file:

• skydrive: http://sdrv.ms/11DdHao

• drive.google: https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B4IUN70RC09nelI3MU1jdHhlWEE/edit

Thanks in advance, every advice and/or hint are very welcomed!

Answer 1

I'm not sure about the correctness of the following statement:

Vietuitoare
    and (areSiraSpinarii exactly 1 Vietuitoare)

Using Protege 4.2 you can explore the reasons for the inconsistency via various forms of explanations (eg "laconic"). Maybe this screenshot helps:

The guaranteed way to remove any reason for inconsistency if to remove all the individuals from the ontology, eg place the individuals into a separate module so that they can be easily plugged in and out. This would not solve your modeling error but would help you to find it faster. Also, are you sure that you want to model the animals as individuals?

Answer 2

If you use Protege 4.1 you can see the inconsistent individuals and axioms in the explanation box (Experimental Protege Explanation Heuristics). The axioms under the tab Hot spots are likely to be the one causing problem, so you should revise them first.

Answer 3

Looking at the justifications that Kaarel posted, we can conclude that Interertebrate is an empty class, so it cannot have instances.

The reason is the following: an Interertebrate is also a Vietuitoare (from axiom Interertebrate SubClassOf Vietuitoare ); areSiraSpinarii is Functional, so either an individual has exactly 1 relationship involving property areSiraSpinarii or it does not have it at all (ie, exactly 0). So a Vietuitoare is either a Vertebrate or a Nevertebrate , by virtue of the two axioms Vietuitoare and (areSiraSpinarii exactly 1 Vietuitoare) SubClassOf Vertebrate and Vietuitoare and (areSiraSpinarii exactly 0 Vietuitoare) SubClassOf Nevertebrate . But both Vertebrate and Nevertebrate are disjoint from Interertebrate . So we are saying that an Interertebrate cannot be a Vertebrate nor a Nevertebrate and at the same time we state that Interertebrate must be either a Vertebrate or a Nevertebrate .

Obviously there must be something wrong out there (but I cannot help, I don't know what the terms mean).