On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:48:08 AM UTC-7, Phillip Lord wrote: > > One of the things that I am sort of interested in with tawny is whether > there is any value to the overlap of Clojure and OWL in the same > syntax. It would be, for example, possible to annotate a Clojure > function with the OWL; then, potentially, you could reason over the > ontology, then use this to retrieve the executable function.
Yes, absolutely. The combination of clojure and OWL with core.logic would be interesting. (as well as other rule engines, databases, etc.) > > A problem with saying these are equivalent in OWL is that "equivalent > > class" is two-way. And so this implies that if you know the unencrypted > > nonce then you also know the secret key and the encrypted nonce. > > Ah, okay, that's my lack of understanding of the domain. You can do this > with a subclass relationship instead, which would make the implication > unidirectional. > Hmmm... I think you're right about that... the set of people who know a given secret key and a given nonce encrypted with that key is a subset of the people who know that unencrypted nonce. I think you've got it! -pdl -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
