Mapping Inconsistencies

Logical Inconsistencies between DOLCE and BFO

1. DOLCE-Lite:spatio-temporal-region - BFO:SpatioTemporalRegion: DOLCE's spatio-temporal-region is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is disjoint to DOLCE's perdurant. DOLCE's perdurant is equivalent to BFO's Occurrent. BFO's SpatioTemporalRegion is a subclass of BFO's Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's spatio-temporal-region and BFO's SpatioTemporalRegion are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


2. DOLCE-Lite:temporal-region - BFO:TemporalRegion: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. DOLCE's temporal-region is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is disjoint to DOLCE's perdurant. DOLCE's perdurant is equivalent to BFO's Occurrent. BFO's TemporalRegion is a subclass of BFO's Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's temporal-region and BFO's TemporalRegion are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


3. DOLCE-Lite:participant - BFORO:has_participant: The range of DOLCE's participant is endurant. The range of BFO's has_participant is Continuant. DOLCE's endurant is disjoint to its quality. DOLCE's quality is equivalent to BFO's Quality. BFO's Quality is a subclass of its Continuant. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's endurant is disjoint to a subclass of BFO's Continuant, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and BFO to conflict for this relation.


4. DOLCE-Lite:participant-in - BFORO:participates_in: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain of DOLCE's participant-in is endurant. The domain of BFO's participates_in is Continuant. DOLCE's endurant is disjoint to its quality. DOLCE's quality is equivalent to BFORO's Quality. BFO's Quality is a subclass of its Continuant. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's endurant is disjoint to a subclass of BFO's Continuant, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and BFO to conflict for this relation.


5. DOLCE-Lite:generic-location - BFORO:located_in: The range of DOLCE's generic-location is particular. The range of BFO's located_in is Continuant. BFO's Continuant is disjoint to its Occurrent. BFO's Occurrent is equivalent to DOLCE'S perdurant. DOLCE's perdurant is a subclass of has-Quality some temporal-location-q. The domain of DOLCE's has-quality is particular. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, BFO's Continuant is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's has-Quality some temporal-location-q having a domain particular, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and BFO to conflict for this relation.


6. DOLCE-Lite:generic-location-of - BFORO:located_of: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The range of DOLCE's generic-location-of is particular. The range of BFO's located_of is Continuant. BFO's Continuant is disjoint to its Occurrent. BFO's Occurrent is equivalent to DOLCE'S perdurant. DOLCE's perdurant is a subclass of has-Quality some temporal-location-q. The domain of DOLCE's has-quality is particular. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, BFO's Continuant is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's has-Quality some temporal-location-q having a domain particular, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and BFO to conflict for this relation.

Logical Inconsistencies between DOLCE and GFO

1. DOLCE-Lite:set - GFO:Set: DOLCE's set is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of GFO's Item. GFO's Set is disjoint to GFO's Item. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Set is disjoint to a superclass of DOLCE's set, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


2. DOLCE-Lite:physical-endurant - GFO:Material_persistant: DOLCE's physical-endurant is a subclass of DOLCE's endurant. DOLCE's endurant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. GFO's Presential is a subclass of GFO's Individual. GFO's Individual is a subclass of the complement of GFO's instantiated_by some GFO's Item. GFO's Material_persistant is a subclass of GFO's Persistant. GFO's Persistant is a subclass of GFO's instantiated_by some GFO's Item. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL Complement class constructor. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Material_persistant is a subclass of its instantiated_by some GFO's Item while DOLCE's physical-endurant is a subclass of the complement of that class, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


3. DOLCE-Lite:quale - GFO:Property_value: DOLCE's quale is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Property_value is a subclass of GFO's Concrete. GFO's Concrete is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's quale and GFO's Property_value are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


4. DOLCE-Lite:quality-space - GFO:Value_space: DOLCE's quality-space is a subclass of DOLCE's particular. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to GFO's Individual. GFO's Value_space is a subclass of GFO's Category. GFO's Category is disjoint to GFO's Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's quality-space and GFO's Value_space are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


5. DOLCE-Lite:time-interval - GFO:Chronoid: DOLCE's time-interval is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Chronoid is a subclass of GFO's Space_Time. GFO's Space_Time is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's time-interval and GFO's Chronoid are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


6. DOLCE-Lite:space-region - GFO:Spatial_region: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. DOLCE's space-region is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Spatial_region is a subclass of GFO's Space_Time. GFO's Space_Time is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's space-region and GFO's Spatial_region are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


7. DOLCE-Lite:temporal-region - GFO:Temporal_region:This inconsistency is similar to the two above inconsistencies, having the same root cause. DOLCE's temporal-region is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Temporal_region is a subclass of GFO's Space_Time. GFO's Space_Time is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's temporal-region and GFO's Temporal_region are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


8. DOLCE-Lite:state - GFOBasic:State:DOLCE's state is a subclass of its perdurant. DOLCE's state is equivalent to GFO's State. GFO's State is a subclass of its Process. GFO's Process is disjoint to its Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is equivalent to DOLCE's perdurant. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's state and GFO's State are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


9. DOLCE-Lite:process - GFOBasic:Process:This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. DOLCE's process is a subclass of its perdurant. GFO's Process is disjoint to its Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is equivalent to DOLCE's perdurant. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Process is disjoint to a superclass of DOLCE's process, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


10. FunctionalParticipation:situation - GFO:Situation: DOLCE's situation is equivalent to DOLCE's non-agentive-social-object. DOLCE's non-agentive-social-object is a subclass of DOLCE's non-physical-object. DOLCE's non-physical-object is a subclass of DOLCE's non-physical-endurant. DOLCE's arbitrary-sum is disjoint to DOLCE's non-physical-endurant. DOLCE's arbitrary-sum is equivalent to GFO's Configuration. GFO's Situation is a subclass of GFO's Configuration. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's situation and GFO's Situation are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


11. FunctionalParticipation:concept - GFO:Concept: GFO's Concept is a subclass of GFO's Category. DOLCE's concept is a subclass of DOLCE's endurant. DOLCE's endurant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. GFO's Presential is a subclass of GFO's Individual. GFO's Category is disjoint to GFO's Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's concept and GFO's Concept are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


12. FunctionalParticipation:role - GFO:Role: GFO's Processual_role is a subclass of GFO's Occurrent. GFO's Processual_role is a subclass of GFO's Role. DOLCE's role is a subclass of DOLCE's endurant. DOLCE's endurant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. GFO's Occurrent is disjoint to GFO's Presential. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's role is a subclass of GFO's Presential, and GFO's Role is a superclass of Occurrent's subclass, with Presential and Occurrent being disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


13. DOLCE-Lite:part - GFO:abstract_has_part: The domain and range for DOLCE's part is particular. The domain and range for GFO's abstract_has_part is Item. GFO's Category is disjoint to Individual. GFO's Item is equivalent to Category. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's particular is disjoint to GFO's Item, due to other equivalence relations in the ontologies, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


14. DOLCE-Lite:part-of - GFO:abstract_part_of: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain and range for DOLCE's part-of is particular. The domain and range for GFO's abstract_part_of is Item. GFO's Category is disjoint to Individual. GFO's Item is equivalent to Category. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's particular is disjoint to GFO's Item, due to other equivalence relations in the ontologies, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


15. DOLCE-Lite:generic-dependent - GFO:necessary_for: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain and range for DOLCE's generic-dependent is particular. The domain and range for GFO's necessary_for is Item. GFO's Category is disjoint to Individual. GFO's Item is equivalent to Category. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's particular is disjoint to GFO's Item, due to other equivalence relations in the ontologies, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


16. DOLCE-Lite:generically-dependent-on - GFO:depends_on: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain and range for DOLCE's generically-dependent-on is particular. The domain and range for GFO's depends_on is Item. GFO's Category is disjoint to Individual. GFO's Item is equivalent to Category. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to Individual. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's particular is disjoint to GFO's Item, due to other equivalence relations in the ontologies, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


17. DOLCE-Lite:proper-part - GFO:has_proper_part: The domain and range for DOLCE's proper-part is particular. GFO's proper-part is a subproperty of its has_part. The domain and range for GFO's has_part is Concrete, therefore the domain and range of GFO's has_proper_part is Concrete. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to GFO's Individual. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of its Individual. GFO's Abstract is disjoint to Concrete. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Concrete is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


18. DOLCE-Lite:proper-part-of - GFO:proper_part_of: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain and range for DOLCE's proper-part-of is particular. GFO's proper-part-of is a subproperty of its part_of. The domain and range for GFO's has_part is Concrete, therefore the domain and range of GFO's has_proper_part is Concrete. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to GFO's Individual. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of its Individual. GFO's Abstract is disjoint to Concrete. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Concrete is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


19. DOLCE-Lite:generic-constituent - GFO:has_constituent_part: The domain for DOLCE's generic-constituent is particular. The domain for GFO's has_constituent_part is Configuration. GFO's Concrete is a subclass of Individual. GFO's Individual is equivalent to DOLCE's particular. GFO's Configuration is a subclass of its Presential. GFO's Presential is disjoint to Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is a subclass of Concrete. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Configuration's superclass is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


20. DOLCE-Lite:generic-constituent-of - GFO:constituent_part_of: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain and range for DOLCE's generic-constituent-of is particular. GFO's constituent_part_of is a subproperty of its has_part. The domain and range for GFO's has_part is Concrete, therefore the domain and range of GFO's constituent_part_of is Concrete. DOLCE's particular is equivalent to GFO's Individual. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of its Individual. GFO's Abstract is disjoint to Concrete. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Concrete is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the domain and range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


21. DOLCE-Lite:generic-location - GFO:occupies: The range for DOLCE's generic-location is particular. The range for GFO's occupies is Space. GFO's Space is a subclass of Space_time. GFO's Space_time is disjoint to its Abstract. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of Individual. GFO's Individual is equivalent to particular. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Space's superclass is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


22. DOLCE-Lite:generic-location-of - GFO:occupied_by: The domain for DOLCE's generic-location-of is particular. The domain for GFO's occupied_by is Space. GFO's Space is a subclass of Space_time. GFO's Space_time is disjoint to its Abstract. GFO's Abstract is a subclass of Individual. GFO's Individual is equivalent to particular. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Space's superclass is disjoint to a subclass of DOLCE's particular, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


23. DOLCE-Lite:has-quale - GFO:has_property_value: The range for DOLCE's has-quale is quale. The range for GFO's has_property_value is property_value. DOLCE's quale is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Property_value is a subclass of GFO's Concrete. GFO's Concrete is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's quale and GFO's Property_value are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


24. DOLCE-Lite:quale-of - GFO:value_of: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The domain for DOLCE's quale-of is quale. The domain for GFO's value_of is property_value. DOLCE's quale is a subclass of DOLCE's abstract. DOLCE's abstract is equivalent to GFO's Abstract. GFO's Property_value is a subclass of GFO's Concrete. GFO's Concrete is disjoint to GFO's Abstract. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both DOLCE's quale and GFO's Property_value are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


25. DOLCE-Lite:q-present-at - GFO:exists_at: The domain for DOLCE's q-present-at is physical-quality. The domain for GFO's exists_at is Presential. DOLCE's physical-quality is a subclass of DOLCE's quality. DOLCE's quality is disjoint to its endurant. DOLCE's endurant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, the superclass of DOLCE's physical-quality is disjoint to GFO's Presential, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


26. DOLCE-Lite:participant - GFOBasic:has_participant: The domain for DOLCE's participant is perdurant. The domain for GFO's has_participant is Processual_structure. GFO's Occurrent is disjoint to its Process. GFO's Process is a subclass of its Processual_structure. DOLCE's perdurant is equivalent to GFO's Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's perdurant is disjoint to a subclass of GFO's Processual_structure, causing the domain restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.


27. DOLCE-Lite:participant-in - GFOBasic:participates_in: This inconsistency is similar to the above inconsistency, having the same root cause. The range for DOLCE's participant-in is perdurant. The range for GFO's participates_in is Processual_structure. GFO's Occurrent is disjoint to its Process. GFO's Process is a subclass of its Processual_structure. DOLCE's perdurant is equivalent to GFO's Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, DOLCE's perdurant is disjoint to a subclass of GFO's Processual_structure, causing the range restrictions of DOLCE and GFO to conflict for this relation.

Logical Inconsistencies between BFO and GFO

1. BFO:Role - GFO:Role: GFO's Processual_role is a subclass of Role and Process. GFO's Process is a subclass of its Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is equivalent to BFO's Occurrent. BFO's role is a subclass of its Continuant. BFO's Continuant is disjoint to its Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Role is a superclass of Processual_role, which is a subclass of Occurrent, and BFO's Role is a subclass of Continuant with Occurrent and Continuant being disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


2. BFO:TemporalRegion - GFO:Temporal_region: BFO's TemporalRegion is a subclass of BFO's Occurrent. BFO's Occurrent is equivalent to GFO's Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is a subclass of GFO's Concrete. GFO's Space_Time is disjoint with GFO's Concrete. GFO's Temporal_Region is a subclass of GFO's Space_Time. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, both BFO's TemporalRegion and GFO's Temporal_region are subclasses of two classes that are disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


3. BFO:MaterialEntity - GFO:Material_persistant: GFO's Material_persistant is a subclass of its Universal. GFO's Universal is a subclass of instantiated_by some GFO's Item. BFO's Material_entity is a subclass of its IndependentContinuant. BFO's IndependentContinuant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. GFO's Presential is a subclass of its Individual. GFO's Individual is a subclass of the complement of instantiated_by some GFO's Item. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL Complement class constructor. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Material_persistant is a subclass of its instantiated_by some GFO's Item while BFO's MaterialEntity is a subclass of the complement of that class, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


4. BFO:DependentContinuant - GFO:Dependent: GFO's Entity is equivalent to its Item or Set. GFO's Category is a subclass of Item. GFO's Category is disjoint to its Individual. GFO's Dependent is a subclass of Individual. GFO's Entity is equivalent to BFO's Entity. BFO's Entity is equivalent to its Occurrent or Continuant. BFO's Continuant is equivalent to its IndependentContinuant or DependentContinuant or SpatialRegion. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, BFO's DependentContinuant is a superclass of GFO's Category, and GFO's Dependent is a subclass of GFO's Individual with Category and Individual being disjoint, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


5. BFO:Process - GFOBasic:Process: BFO's Process is a subclass of BFO's Occurrent. BFO's Occurrent is equivalent to GFO's Occurrent. GFO's Occurrent is disjoint to GFO's Process. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Process is disjoint to a superclass of BFO's process, hence the two classes cannot be equivalent.


6. BFORO:located_in - GFO:occupies: The range of BFO's located_in is Continuant. The range of GFO's occupies is Space. GFO's Presential is a subclass of Concrete. GFO's Concrete is disjoint with its Space_time. GFO's Presential is equivalent to BFO's IndependentContinuant. BFO's IndependentContinuant is a subclass of its Continuant. GFO's Space is a subclass of its Space_time. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Space is a subclass of GFO's Space_time, and, by equivalence BFO's Continuant is a superclass of Presential, which is Concrete's subclass, with Space_time and Concrete being disjoint, causing the range restrictions of BFO and GFO to conflict for this relation.


7. BFORO:location_of and GFO:occupied_by: The range of BFORO's location_of is Continuant. The range of GFO's occupied_by is Presential. BFO's SpatialRegion is a subclass of Continuant. BFO's SpatialRegion is disjoint to its IndependentContinuant. BFO's IndependentContinuant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Presential is disjoint to a subclass of BFO's Continuant, causing the range restrictions of BFO and GFO to conflict for this relation.


8. BFORO:has_participant - GFO:has_participant: The range for BFO's has_participant is Continuant. The range for GFO's has_participant is Presential. BFO's SpatialRegion is a subclass of Continuant. BFO's SpatialRegion is disjoint to its IndependentContinuant. BFO's IndependentContinuant is equivalent to GFO's Presential. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, GFO's Presential is disjoint to a subclass of BFO's Continuant, causing the range restrictions of BFO and GFO to conflict for this relation.


9. BFORO:has_participant - GFOBasic:has_participant: The range for BFO's has_participant is Continuant. The range for GFO's has_participant is the complement of Space_time_entity and the complement of Processual_structure. GFO's Spatial_region is a subclass of its Space_time_entity. GFO's Spatial_region is equivalent to BFO's SpatialRegion. BFO's SpatialRegion is equivalent to its Continuant. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL Complement class constructor. In this equivalence relation, BFO's Continuant is equivalent to a subclass of GFO's Space_time_entity, and cannot ever equate to the complement of GFO's Space_time_entity, causing the range restrictions of BFO and GFO to conflict for this relation.


10. BFORO:participates_in - GFOBasic:participates_in: The range for BFO's participates_in is Occurrent. The range for GFO's participates_in is Processual_structure. GFO's Occurrent is disjoint to its Process. GFO's Process is a subclass of its Processual_structure. GFO's Occurrent is equivalent to BFO's Occurrent. This inconsistency is a result of the OWL DisjointClasses class axiom. In this equivalence relation, BFO's Occurrent is disjoint to a subclass of GFO's Processual_structure, causing the range restrictions of BFO and GFO to conflict for this relation.