[protege-discussion] SWRL Disjonction

[Thomas Russ]

On Apr 1, 2009, at 1:19 PM, narjess touzani wrote:

> Dear All,
> I am beginner in Protégé-owl  and I am working with SWRL rules  
> within Protégé-2000. My question is about how to express disjonction  
> within SWRL langage, I meen how to write rules like :
> Antecedent --> consequent1 OR consequent2
> Thank you for help

You are limited to using conjunctions.

And in any case, what would be the meaning of an assertion?  How would  
you plan on using it?

Maybe instead of disjunction, you could make of assertions about  
complements?  So for example you would be able to write

   Antecedent -->  (complement consequent3)