[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-dev] Re: In depth code/tools discussion [was-Re: [ontolog-forum

To: "[ontolog-dev]" <ontolog-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:41:55 -0800
Message-id: <4230F763.4030901@xxxxxxxx>
The [ontolog-dev] discussion space is up and going now.    (01)

Do note that one would need to be a subscriber to post. However, 
the forum archives are openly accessible (to anyone, not just 
subscribers). Please make a note of the URL:    (02)

[ontolog-dev] Forum Archives:
   http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-dev/    (03)

Cheers.  =ppy
--    (04)

Peter Yim wrote Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:27:56 -0800:
> Further to our discussion at today's Ontolog community conference call,
> both Peter Denno and Adam Pease have agreed to move their discussion on 
> the SUO-KIF validator over to the [ontolog-dev] forum (archived mailing 
> list).    (05)

> ... therefore, anyone who is interested to track that discourse, or is 
> interested in future in depth discussion on code and tools should 
> subscribe yourself to that list. You can do so yourself at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-dev
> or, send me an e-mail offline, if you want me to get you subscribed.
> Regards.  =ppy
> --     (06)

> Peter Yim wrote Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:42:21 -0800:    (07)

>>  > [denno] I was looking for the correct forum for this
>>  > dialog. Ontolog might not be it, but scanning old
>>  > email I couldn't think who else to send it to!).    (08)

>> [ppy] Good point, Peter. With the Ontolog discussion space (ref: 
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ ), we actually have list called 
>> [ontolog-dev] that would probably be an appropriate venue for 
>> discussions like this. That list has hardly any traffic and only a 
>> cursory number of subscribers now.    (09)

>> Let's consider using that for in depth code/tools related discussions 
>> (this will be especially crucial if traffic volume explodes, as they 
>> will, for this kind of discussions.)    (010)

>> Of course, we could start any number of forums/lists too, if need be.    (011)

>> Members, let's hear your thoughts about this.    (012)

>> Who would want to move the discussion over to that? Please indicate if 
>> you would want to be subscribed if we do decide to move the discussion 
>> over.    (013)

>> Other suggestions & recommendations regarding this matter are welcomed.
>> Regards.  =ppy
>> --     (014)

>> Peter Denno wrote Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:58:53 -0500:
>>> Adam, et al.,
>>> I wrote a small tool to check a few aspects of the 'structural 
>>> integrity' of ontologies written in SUO KIF. ...[snip]...
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>