If R and S are inverse relations, then aRb <-> bSa. Thus, if you define uterus part-of pelvis, that implies pelvis has-part uterus. However, the latter statement is not true. By defining part-of and has-part as inverse, you have made them say the same thing as integral-part-of. Defining part-of and has-part as inverse relations is an error.
Log in to post a comment.