- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:01:38 +0000
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.net>, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
<Enjoying a trip down memory lane when I used to be functional>
On 30/06/2010 12:45, "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
>> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
>
> You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
>
> # An rdf:List that loops around...
>
> <#mylist> a rdf:List ;
> rdf:first <#Alice> ;
> rdf:next <#mylist> .
That's not a mess, that's pretty.
And can be pretty useful.
An infinite list of Alices - I think Lewis Carroll would have heartily
approved.
>
> # A looping, branching mess...
>
> <#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
> rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
> rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
An interesting structure.
I'm sure I can think of some use cases for the first, but not so sure about
the second in RDF.
Am I right in thinking that owl:sameAs is a bit like a "let" or "where"
clause?
I like to think that Strachey would be using RDF to bring down my SPARQL
endpoint by getting it to calculate things like infinite precision
multiplication.
Any offers what that Prime Sieve would look like in RDF?
Here is what it looks like in Miranda:
primes = sieve [ 2.. ]
where
sieve (p:x) = p : sieve [ n | n <- x; n mod p > 0 ]
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 18:02:52 UTC