Well, after a reasonable degree of struggle, I managed to get the first version of my literate OWL system working. As well as learning python, I’ve had a go with git; my repo is hosted on github at git://github.com/phillord/literate_omn.git. There are three components.

Learning a new language is always a bit stressful. I thought that I would learn python; I need a new, rapid development, build some scripts, but don’t look as awful as perl type language. I’ve recently learnt lua which was fun, but then it’s meant as a very small, quick langauge. It’s nice, but not really the perl-u-like that I wanted.

My next blog post was going to be about function, as I have just had a paper about it accepted. But, I got slightly side-tracked along the way, thinking about Literature Programming as it applies to OWL. While an ontology is (or, to my mind, should be) a computational artifact, it’s a bit different from a program; the main thing is that it doesn’t run; it doesn’t have that functional test that a program does. This is not to say that an ontology is not an application-dependent entity. It can be, but even then it needs to have a program built on it.

After 12 years of trusty service, with 5384 miles on the computer, my old bike, a Dawes Giro Audax, has finally given up the ghost; it was an excellent purchase. I got it just after I moved to London, really didn’t have much cash, immediately post-PhD. At around 600 quid, it was expensive, but turned out to be worth every penny. It was quick, comfortable, usable for training, usable for commuting. And after 12 years, the paint job and most of the rest of it is still flawless.