as you see both classes have the axiom :prop2 some rdfs:literal
I need to define class c based on a and b (e.g by using and , or, not) so that has this axiom as its definition.
You could define c as a and b - because the class prop2 some rdfs:Literal will always belong to the intersection of the two classes.
However it would be a lot more intuitive to declare c subclass of prop2 some rdfs:Literal and then a subclass of c and b subclass of c. Is there a reason that forces you to define c in terms of a and b and not the opposite?
You could define
casa and b- because the classprop2 some rdfs:Literalwill always belong to the intersection of the two classes.However it would be a lot more intuitive to declare
csubclass ofprop2 some rdfs:Literaland thenasubclass ofcandbsubclass ofc. Is there a reason that forces you to definecin terms ofaandband not the opposite?