Add support for disjointness axioms

[NicolasRouquette]

User Story

As an ontology author, I would like support for asserting disjointness axioms in OML so that I can encode semantics that do not fit in the OML bundle closure policy..

Detailed Description

Description providing additional details and context.

The encoding of the Prov-O ontology in OML provides a compelling case for not applying the OML Bundle closure to the provenance ontology because the generated disjunctions are too strong as discussed in the W3C provenance mailing list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2021Aug/thread.html

On the other hand, if we do not use OML Bundle closure, then, we need a way to specify the asserted disjunctions in the ontology: https://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o

:Activity
    a owl:Class ;
    owl:disjointWith :Entity
.

:ActivityInfluence
    a owl:Class ;
    owl:disjointWith :EntityInfluence
.

:Agent
    a owl:Class ;
    owl:disjointWith :InstantaneousEvent
.

:Entity
    a owl:Class ;
    owl:disjointWith :InstantaneousEvent
.

In the OML Provenance vocabulary, this would require support for asserting the disjointness of OML entities (aspects, concepts or relation entities).

Propose adding a new OML syntax keyword, disjointWith, that would map to owl:disjointWith and that would accept a list of OML entities.

In the specific case of the provenance vocabulary, this would yield the following:

concept Activity :> ActivityOrAgentOrEntity [
  disjointWith Entity
]

relation entity ActivityInfluence :> Influence [
  from ActivityOrAgentOrEntity 
  to Activity
  forward wasInfluencedByActivity 
  reverse activityInfluenced
  asymmetric
  irreflexive
  disjointWith EntityInfluence
]

concept Entity :> ActivityOrAgentOrEntity [
  disjointWith InstantaneousEvent
]

concept Agent :> ActivityOrAgentOrEntity [
  disjointWith InstantaneousEvent
]

Acceptance Criteria

• Given OML support for disjointness, then unmodified Prov-O examples are all consistent.