Reasoning error

The ontology shown below is inconsistent.

Still running
stardogreasoning consistency ***database*** -u ***user*** -p ***password***
reports that it is consistent.
(Stardog server 7.6.0)

Thanks in advance,

Pawel

@prefix owl:                   <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdf:                   <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs:                  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix skos:                  <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd:                   <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix : <http://aaa.org/> .

:test_1 rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual, :Account ;
:hasOpenDate :test_2, :test_3 .


:test_2 rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual, :OpenDate .


:test_3 rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual, :OpenDate .

[ rdf:type owl:AllDifferent ;
  owl:distinctMembers ( :test_2
                        :test_3
                      )
] .

:hasOpenDate
        rdf:type            owl:ObjectProperty ;
        rdfs:label          "has open date" ;
        rdfs:range          :OpenDate .

:Account
        rdf:type         owl:Class ;
        rdfs:label       "account" ;
        rdfs:subClassOf  [ rdf:type                  owl:Restriction ;
                           owl:onClass               :OpenDate ;
                           owl:onProperty            :hasOpenDate ;
                           owl:qualifiedCardinality  "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
                         ] .

The restriction in your ontology is not supported by the default reasoning level SL in Stardog. You'll notice a message in the stardog.log file that looks like this:

Not a valid SL axiom: SubClassOf(aaa:Account,cardinality(aaa:hasOpenDate,1,aaa:OpenDate)) 

The DL reasoning level would support this but we don't recommend that mode. For this kind of validation task we would recommend the ICV functionality. You can write cardinality constraints in SHACL and use the icv report Stardog command to perform the validation.

Best,
Evren

Hi Evren,

Switching to DL showed inconsistency.
Thanks for you prompt reply.

Regards,

PaweĊ‚