>
> I know from experience that software engineers often try to build their
> artefacts to accommodate potential future changes. How to do this is an
> active area of debate. (01)
- we got to this point a few months back
are there patterns of change?
time is one of the factors that determines patterns of change (02)
>
> If you want to argue that fruitfulness is not yet well understood - I would (03)
> Anyway, the point I wished to make is that providing an artefact that will
> somehow support requirements that I have not yet specified is recognised as
> an important consideration by software engineers and has its counterpart
> 'fruitfulness' in science.
> (04)
important point too - fruitfulness, or at least 'fitness for purpose'
if the fruitfulness debate is not going to be conclusive quickly
enough (05)
fruitfulness=value , although the criteria change, depending for who?
we live in a world where the gain of some is obtained at the expenses of others
- especially when it comes to information and knowledge. (06)
RANT/
The important role of speculative enquiry is accepted to some extent,
but a lot of effort imho is spent on research (done with public money)
that is not useful (enough) nor applied , or only benefits the
researchers and their private clients.
Research funded with public money should benefit the public at large,
while I have not seen
such a provision in the current policies, at least not in the
guidelines that I have seen.
disclaimer: I have not been asked to serve for the European
Commission since I had an open disagreement with another (more senior)
research evaluator and managed to hinder (at least temporarily) the
funding a private (rather objectionable) business being disguised as
research with public EU funding.
It happens routinely.
/RANT (07)
PDM (08)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: 23 January 2008 23:26
> To: Patrick Cassidy
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
>
> At 3:03 PM -0500 1/23/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> PatH,
> Many thanks for the detailed comments.
> In answer to several 'why's - just because I want to include everything
> that anyone might find useful as long as it is not logically inconsistent
> with other parts.
>
> Hmm, but that would surely lead to extremely 'inclusive' ontologies. There
> is no end to the things that people might, indeed actually would, find
> useful: intermittent intervals, 'fuzzy' intervals, tolerances, a notion of
> acuity, the ability to specify an interval by a propositional condition, the
> ability to deal with circular time (for seasonal events and recurrent
> intervals), the ability to deal with multiple granularities, the ability to
> consider branching futures but also to eliminate them when they become
> awkward, etc.. All these have at one time or another been seriously proposed
> as vital parts of a realistic time ontology. In contrast, I have never seen
> a convincing use case for putting the real line into time reasoning. The
> distinction between open and closed intervals is quite UNintuitive: it is an
> artifact of a certain mathematical approach to the description of
> continuity, and wasn't widely accepted even among mathematicians until the
> early 20th century. It still gives high-school students trouble, and hardly
> anyone without a math degree will get it exactly right.
>
> I want an ontology that will be useful to as many people
> as possible, and my expectation is that the best way to do that is to not
> exclude anything that someone might want, if it can be accommodated.
>
> Might possibly want, or actually has wanted? I don't think that the former
> is meaningful as a design criterion.
>
> This
> increases the complexity of the program that has to handle each element that
> has an alternative representation, but finding the proper way to accommodate
> alternatives should only have to be done once
>
> Assuming that we have thought of them all in the first place, which is so
> unlikely that it can safely be ignored :-)
>
> , and I think it will be worth
> the effort - merely a gut feeling, but a strong one.
>
> As an example of my preferred methodology:
>
> [PC] > > (3) two time intervals closed at the adjoining ends both overlap
> and
> > meet (I think this is not permitted in Allen's algebra)
> >
> [PH] > Right, it is not. This would wreck all the
> > algebraic time-interval reasoners. Why do you
> > want to do this?
> >
> I would rather modify the reasoners
>
> I should perhaps have said all the algebraic time *ontologies*. Its not
> primarily a point about the efficiency of reasoning. (But in any case, that
> is easy to say, but not nearly so easy to do when the underlying algebra has
> 4 times as many generators, as it will have in your case.)
>
> to accommodate a more inclusive ontology
>
> But its not more inclusive, just different. The vector continuum theory has
> points and intervals, treats the point b as identical to the interval <b b>,
> and still preserves (a version of) the Allen algebra. It also has a number
> of things that your model lacks, most notably backward-pointing intervals
> with negative duration, and many useful axiomatic simplifications (for
> example, *any* two points determine a unique interval, without
> qualification, and meeting intervals always uniquely determine their unique
> meeting-point) and yet it doesn't need the artificial and useless
> distinction between open and closed intervals.
>
> than restrict the ontology to accommodate existing reasoners. That's also
> why I prefer FOL+ for ontologies even though DL reasoners are more
> efficient.
>
> I agree with you there, but that's not analogous. We aren't comparing
> expressiveness of logics here, but rather appropriateness of ontologies.
> There is a real danger of 'concept-bloat' when writing ontologies, and it
> has serious consequences, as it multiplies throughout the entire ontology.
> For example, if the time ontology requires a distinction between 4 kinds of
> interval with the same endpoints, and so 4 ways of meeting and so on, then
> every temporal reference has to be aware of, and sensitive to, these 4-way
> distinctions. There will be at least 4 kinds of event, of process, etc.: or
> else there will have to be ad-hoc and pointless 'conventions' that must be
> followed and remembered (continuous verbs of motion indicate actions on
> closed time-intervals, etc.) And none of this is necessary!
>
> This is an answer in general terms, without a specific "need"
> cited, but it conform to the goal (which I think is valid) of not
> restricting the foundation ontology for any reason other than logical
> inconsistency.
>
> I don't want it *restricted*, but to use a different mathematical basis for
> the time-line, in order to make it better correspond to intuition, isn't
> restricting it, its just doing it professionally.
>
> Perhaps there will be cases where I will conclude otherwise,
> and if it turns out that this specific "desideratum" creates a lot more
> difficulty than I anticipate I would apply a more stringent "need" criterion
> to eliminate it. For now, it seems relatively harmless
>
> I very much doubt it. (The conflation of meeting with overlapping isn't
> properly thought through yet, and is likely to be very harmful.) But what
> are your arguments FOR it? Its one among many candidates, and I don't see
> that it has a lot to recommend it, frankly. And in any case, you havn't
> actually given us an ontology. What do the axioms look like?
>
> , as I anticipate
> that the interval algebra can be easily modified to accommodate it, even if
> the result is less elegant than the existing theory.
>
> Concerning two other specific points:
>
> [PH]
> > You need to be careful. Consider the tossed ball.
> > There are two open meeting intervals where its vertical velocity is
> non-zero. But at the point where they
> > meet it is zero. You don't want the truth of the proposition
> > (vertical velocity =/= 0) to 'leak' into that point when they are
> concatenated.
> >
> > BTW, this is a real issue. Points like this are central to qualitative
> physics
> > reasoners and planners, which have many real applications in industry now.
>
> If I were to generate the event described by concatenating the before and
> after intervals, that would require an ad hoc solution, but I can't think of
> any reason why I would actually represent that event as anything other than
> the full up and down trajectory, where the zero velocity is true only at the
> one point, within an event defined by a differential equation.
>
> Read some of the literature on qualitative (not naive) physics. It is all
> about boundary points where velocities and accelerations change values from
> positive to negative. One can give entire qualitative theories in terms of
> vectors of such qualitative states, and use them in controllers, etc..
>
> If for some
> reason I did need to deal with the issue of truth at a point generated by a
> concatenation of open intervals, I would set the fluent values at the
> meeting point as intermediate between the values at those intervals
> infinitesimally before and infinitesimally after the meeting point
>
> Have you even tried to axiomatize any of this?? What do you mean by
> "setting" a value? Or by "infinitesimal"? In the modern mathematical
> framework in which the open/closed distinction makes sense, there isn't such
> a thing as an infinitesimal: they don't exist.
>
> , both of
> which fluent values should be experimentally indistinguishable, by
> projection or interpolation from their values in their respective intervals.
> For the situation where one wants to represent a value as changing abruptly
> at a time point, that should only be allowed for intervals that are open
> before and closed after the point.
>
> Hmm, I really don't like that "allowed". Allowed by who?
>
> Why open before and closed after? What about closed before and open after?
> This looks like one of those ad-hoc conventions that one finds the need for
> in order to stay sane.
>
> For physical units including time, I do think that some notion of
> precision (granularity, tolerance) has to be included in the reasoning
>
> Well, QP manages to get a lot done without it. In fact, I don't know of any
> practical ontology that does any reasoning about granularity (though Jerry
> Hobbs might).
>
> , but
> in specific cases the tolerance can be set to zero (as in the case of
> representing differential equations).
>
> . . . and:
> [PC] > > (6) Two intervals open at the adjacent ends also meet if those
> ends
> >> are defined by a common point
> >
> [PH]> Now you have the problem that a pair of points
> > does not uniquely determine the interval between
> > them, which runs counter to all intuition and
> > will destroy many calendar and interval-reasoning
> > systems.
> >
> Since all instances of intervals will have their type defined (cc, co, oc,
> oo), each will be uniquely defined by its open and close points.
>
> Four kinds of interval... Four kinds of meeting... Four different interval
> algebras, whose union is an algebra probably roughly 4x4 =16 times as big.
> The Allen transitivity table has 13x13= 169 entries: this one will have
> about 2000 entries. And as far as I can see, all this in order to gain
> nothing of any actual use.
>
> PatH
>
>
> PatC
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:06 PM
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Cc: Patrick Cassidy
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
> >
> > At 1:10 PM -0500 1/23/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > >PatH,
> > > Thanks for the answer.
> > > The implementation of Time that I would like to use is one that I
> > >couldn't find in the Time Catalog - though I may not have interpreted
> > all of
> > >the axioms correctly. What I would like is a representation of Time
> > as
> > >isomorphic to the real line
> >
> > You can't get isomorphism in a FO axiomatization.
> > Why do you want continuity? Seems like density is
> > enough for interval/point reasoning, and for
> > calculus you need more than continuity anyway.
> >
> > >with:
> > > (1) open, closed and semi-open intervals, all distinguishable and
> > specified
> > >by their endpoints (whether or not the endpoint is included in the
> > interval)
> >
> > Right. This would be the way to do it. But do you
> > really want all these distinctions? It means that
> > any attribution of truth to an interval is forced
> > to make decisions about truth at the endpoints,
> > and often - Id say almost always - there is no
> > way to decide such questions, no actual fact of
> > the matter. Certainly there is no perceptual or
> > engineering/measurement way to distinguish an
> > open from a closed interval.
> >
> > > (2) a time point as a subtype of a closed time interval, and
> > identical to a
> > >closed interval of zero length.
> >
> > Is there any utility in saying a point is a kind
> > of interval? And what do you say about open
> > intervals of zero length?
> >
> > > (3) two time intervals closed at the adjoining ends both overlap and
> > meet
> > >(I think this is not permitted in Allen's algebra
> >
> > Right, it is not. This would wreck all the
> > algebraic time-interval reasoners. Why do you
> > want to do this?
> >
> > >);
> > > Intervals that both overlap and meet must both be closed at the
> > meeting
> > >ends and have a single time point as the overlap interval.
> >
> > Makes sense. But do you want to allow any other
> > things to be both points and intervals?
> >
> > > (4) dividing a time interval at a point gives rise (depending on the
> > >dividing operation) to either (a) two time intervals, each having a
> > closed
> > >end with the point of division (and conversely, joining two time
> > intervals
> > >that meet at closed ends merges the common point, which is a single
> > ordinary
> > >point); or (b) two intervals open at the point of division; or (c) one
> > >interval (the earlier one) open and one (the later one) closed at the
> > point
> > >of division. Operations a and b can divide an interval into two equal
> > >parts, if the starting interval ends are both closed or both open.
> > >Operation c can equally divide a closed-open interval.
> >
> > This seems baroquely complicated (how many
> > dividing operations must one keep track of??) and
> > also arbitrary: why does the dividing point get
> > absorbed by the later rather than the earlier
> > interval?
> >
> > When you say equal parts: does the closed
> > interval [a b] have the same duration as the open
> > interval ( a b) ? Yes, surely. So why aren't
> > these intervals 'equal' in the required sense (ie
> > when judging duration.)
> >
> > > (5) catenating two intervals both open at the joining end creates
> > the point
> > >of juncture.
> >
> > ? creates? What does that mean?
> >
> > You need to be careful. Consider the tossed ball.
> > There are two open meeting intervals where its
> > vertical velocity is non-zero. But at the point
> > where they meet it is zero. You don't want the
> > truth of the proposition (vertical velocity =/=
> > 0) to 'leak' into that point when they are
> > concatenated.
> >
> > BTW, this is a real issue. Points like this are
> > central to qualitative physics reasoners and
> > planners, which have many real applications in
> > industry now.
> >
> > > (6) Two intervals open at the adjacent ends also meet if those ends
> > are
> > >defined by a common point
> >
> > Now you have the problem that a pair of points
> > does not uniquely determine the interval between
> > them, which runs counter to all intuition and
> > will destroy many calendar and interval-reasoning
> > systems.
> >
> > > (7) time points are both 'part of' and 'contained in' time
> > intervals.
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > (8) the default time interval type (if defaults are needed
> >
> > I have no idea what it would mean, so lets ignore this.
> >
> > >) is one closed
> > >at the lower end and open at the upper end -
> > > (This type is used to specify AM or PM in a day).
> > > (9) Events that occur at a single time point imply a preceding
> > interval
> > >open at that point, in which the event state differs from the state at
> > (and
> > >for some interval after) that point. Though unrealistic for physical
> > >events
> >
> > I think its realistic for them too. A light comes
> > on: even if the process of coming on takes some
> > small interval of time, that interval must have a
> > first point.
> >
> > >, this can be used to specify socially defined events, such as someone
> > >becoming president at a particular time point.
> > >
> > > But I didn't see (and may have missed) a single theory that has all
> > of
> > >those requirements in the time catalog. Is such a theory actually in
> > the
> > >time catalog - or elsewhere?
> >
> > Probably not in the catalog in that exact form,
> > no. I only considered actual axiomatic theories.
> > Its impossible to specify the real line in FOL,
> > for example: you need the notion of continuity,
> > which is inherently second-order. But this might
> > be one possible model of some of the theories, I
> > havn't checked. The vector continuum treats <b b>
> > as being both a point and an interval, but it
> > modifies the notion of 'meet' to preserve an
> > Allen-style algebra: you have to say that these
> > point-intervals meet themselves. In that theory,
> > <a b> does not overlap <b,b>: it meets it.
> >
> > > If not, is it somehow internally logically
> > >inconsistent?
> >
> > Im sure its not inconsistent, but I am quite
> > unconvinced that it would be particularly useful
> > (and certainly not universally acceptable.)
> >
> > PaT
> >
> > >
> > > PatC
> > >
> > >Patrick Cassidy
> > >MICRA, Inc.
> > >908-561-3416
> > >cell: 908-565-4053
> > >cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:12 AM
> > >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> > >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
> > >>
> > >> At 11:31 PM -0500 1/22/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > >> >Just a question about one point (so to speak):
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Re PTim: I realize that calling an interval a point is
> > >> problematical.
> > >> >> But in anything that has to do with the physical world, there
> > is no
> > >> >> way to specify a true point. Perhaps a better term would be
> > "grain
> > >> >> in time", abbreviated "Grit".
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Has anyone observed any problems of *logical consistency* in
> > >> classifying a
> > >> >point on a line as being identical to a closed interval of zero
> > >> length, with
> > >> >beginning and end points identical?
> > >>
> > >> I presume you mean, interval on the real line.
> > >> None: this is quite consistent. This model
> > >> (actually several versions of it) is discussed in
> > >> the 'time catalog'. But it does produce some
> > >> complications. For example, consider a ball
> > >> tossed into the air. At one point in its
> > > > trajectory, its vertical velocity is zero. If
> > >> this is a closed interval [b,b], then the
> > >> intervals of positive and negative vertical
> > >> velocity must be open (or semi-open) intervals
> > >> (a,b) and (b,c). Now, these intervals have the
> > >> same endpoint, so they apparently meet (in the
> > >> sense used by Allen's interval algebra). Yet
> > >> there is an interval *between* them, so they
> > >> apparently cannot meet. So this model seems to be
> > >> incompatible with the Allen algebra, which is a
> > >> major problem. The ontology called the 'vector
> > >> continuum' there takes this idea and develops it
> > >> axiomatically rather than presuming the real
> > >> line, and gives a temporal ontology which I think
> > >> is quite neat. But it has some apparent oddities,
> > >> eg it allows negative intervals (which turn out
> > >> to be quite useful.) And it isn't possible
> > >> (AFAIK) to interpret it in the real line.
> > >>
> > >> > Or are the 'point' and 'interval'
> > >> >classifications merely two different views of the same thing?
> > >>
> > >> Really, there is no simple answer to this
> > >> question. Try reading some of the options
> > >> described in the catalog. I think the various
> > >> intuitions are reasonably well explained there.
> > >>
> > >> PatH
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >PatC
> > >> >
> > >> >Patrick Cassidy
> > >> >MICRA, Inc.
> > >> >908-561-3416
> > >> >cell: 908-565-4053
> > >> >cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > >> >
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-
> > forum-
> > >> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> > >> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:48 PM
> > >> >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pat,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The position I most strongly advocate is not a specific
> > ontology,
> > >> >> but a framework of conventions for organizing a multiplicity
> > >> >> of special cases (not necessarily consistent with one another),
> > >> >> making the implicit relationships explicit, and providing tools
> > >> >> and guidelines for mixing and matching. The lattice of
> > theories
> > >> >> is an example. Robert Kent's IFF is a much more ambitious
> > example.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would recommend a fairly simple framework for starters, since
> > >> >> there's a danger of freezing half-baked ideas before they're
> > fully
> > >> >> baked. (RDF, for example, was hardly out of the oven before
> > >> >> Tim Bray tried, unsuccessfully, to pull it back in.)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Do you have any granularity axioms? That is one of the
> > hardest
> > >> >> > ontological problems, in my experience.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There are so many hard problems, it's hard to say which are
> > harder.
> > >> >> But the idea of taking the least significant digit as the
> > criterion
> > >> >> for implicit granularity is fairly common for experimental data
> > >> >> (unless some explicit margin of error is stated).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Re PTim: I realize that calling an interval a point is
> > >> problematical.
> > >> >> But in anything that has to do with the physical world, there
> > is no
> > >> >> way to specify a true point. Perhaps a better term would be
> > "grain
> > >> >> in time", abbreviated "Grit".
> > >> >>
> > >> >> John
> > >> >>
> > >> >> PS re HTML email formats: Your note of 11:18 was in a readable
> > >> font
> > >> >> for Thunderbird, but your note of 11:37 appeared in a tiny,
> > tiny
> > >> font.
> > >> >> I had to increase the font size by two steps to make it the
> > same as
> > >> >> the previous note. But then the fonts for all other notes were
> > too
> > >> >> big, and I had to decrease the default by two steps.
> > >> > >
> > >> >> At least each of your notes was entirely in one font size.
> > I've
> > >> >> received some email in which each paragraph was in a
> > progressively
> > >> >> smaller font. That's why I hate HTML email.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > >> >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > >> >> Subscribe/Config:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > >> >> forum/
> > >> >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > >> >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >> >> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >_________________________________________________________________
> > > > >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > >> >Subscribe/Config:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > >> forum/
> > >> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > >> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> > >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> > >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > >> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > >> forum/
> > >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > >Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> > forum/
> > >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1240 - Release Date: 23/01/2008
> 17:47
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (09)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|