Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] SWRL Disjonction

narjess touzani narjess_tz at
Thu Apr 2 01:46:41 PDT 2009

Dear Mr.Thomas,
Thank you for your response.
I am modelling pedagogical knowledge. And I want to express and infer rules on these knowledge. So I want to express rules like : 
if activity_type is "production" then activity can be a "case study" one OR an "Analysis" one. If we write this rule in SWRL:
activity_type(Production) --> Activity(case_Study) OR Activity(analysis)
 So, in this case I need the disjonction operator. 
Thank you 

--- En date de : Mer 1.4.09, Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU> a écrit :

De: Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU>
Objet: Re: [protege-discussion] SWRL Disjonction
À: "User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor" <protege-discussion at>
Date: Mercredi 1 Avril 2009, 22h44

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)

protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at

Instructions for unsubscribing: 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list