At the moment, associatedBand and associatedMusicalArtist are always used in parallel, see, e.g.,
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Trent_Reznor, which has the same statements for both. However, the first has range dbo:associatedBand, the latter has range dbo:MusicalArtist, which should be disjoint (one inherits from Person, the other from Organization), and actually are once you add the DOLCE axioms to the ontology.
Proposal for refactoring:
introduce a new class dbo:MusicalAct, subclass of dbo:Agent
make dbo:MusicArtist a subclass of both dbo:Artist (as it is now) and dbo:MusicalAct
make dbo:Band a subclass of both dbo:Group (as it is now) and dbo:MusicalAct
use only one property, i.e., dbo:associatedMusicalAct, with domain and range dbo:MusicalAct
This should resolve the inconsistency, without losing information.
A similar issue exists for dbo:musicalBand and dbo:musicalArtist (linking singles to artists), which should be replaced by one property dbo:musicalAct.
Furthermore, dbo:artist could get a more concise range (it is now dbo:Agent, could then be dbo:MusicalAct).
At the moment, associatedBand and associatedMusicalArtist are always used in parallel, see, e.g., http://dbpedia.org/resource/Trent_Reznor, which has the same statements for both. However, the first has range dbo:associatedBand, the latter has range dbo:MusicalArtist, which should be disjoint (one inherits from Person, the other from Organization), and actually are once you add the DOLCE axioms to the ontology.
Proposal for refactoring:
This should resolve the inconsistency, without losing information.
A similar issue exists for dbo:musicalBand and dbo:musicalArtist (linking singles to artists), which should be replaced by one property dbo:musicalAct.
Furthermore, dbo:artist could get a more concise range (it is now dbo:Agent, could then be dbo:MusicalAct).