@prefix : <https://purl.org/nemo/gufo-examples/higher-order-types-invalid#> .
@prefix ex: <https://purl.org/nemo/gufo-examples/higher-order-types#> .
@prefix gufo: <http://purl.org/nemo/gufo#> .
@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#> .

#################################################################
# gUFO example 07 -- a COMMON MISTAKE, kept here on purpose.
#
# Re-declares AnimalSpecies from ontology.ttl and adds a new
# species, :Tiger, the way a modeler might do it in a hurry: by
# copying the :Lion pattern but forgetting to add the new class to
# the disjointness declaration. Discussed in index.html ("Common
# pitfall"). Do not copy this pattern.
#################################################################

: a owl:Ontology ;
    rdfs:comment "Deliberately invalid variant of example 07, used by the test suite to show that OWL alone does not catch a missing disjointness declaration between partition members that gufoshapes does catch."@en ;
    owl:imports <https://purl.org/nemo/gufo#> .

:Animal a owl:Class , gufo:Kind ;
    rdfs:subClassOf gufo:FunctionalComplex .

:AnimalSpecies a owl:Class , gufo:Type ;
    rdfs:subClassOf gufo:Type ;
    gufo:partitions :Animal .

:Lion a owl:Class , :AnimalSpecies ;
    rdfs:subClassOf :Animal .

:Hyena a owl:Class , :AnimalSpecies ;
    rdfs:subClassOf :Animal ;
    owl:disjointWith :Lion .

# MISTAKE: a new species is added the way :Lion and :Hyena were,
# but the modeler forgot the disjointness declaration -- nothing
# here says a tiger cannot also be a lion. OWL raises no error
# (disjointness is never assumed by default; without it, a DL
# reasoner simply allows an individual to be both), but it defeats
# the purpose of AnimalSpecies as a partition: species are supposed
# to be mutually exclusive.
:Tiger a owl:Class , :AnimalSpecies ;
    rdfs:subClassOf :Animal ;
    rdfs:label "Tiger"@en .

:Rajah a :Lion , :Tiger ;
    rdfs:label "Rajah"@en ;
    rdfs:comment "Perfectly fine as far as OWL is concerned: an individual that is both a lion and a tiger, because nothing declares the two disjoint."@en .