|
At 1:43 PM -0400 3/19/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
Matthew,
Perhaps adding more detail will help clarify:
[PC] > > Perhaps the non-intuitive element is that
an instance of a Role
(a
> > TimeSLice) can also be an instance of a Person(a
> > dimension-neutral Type) -
>
[MW] > MW: You introduce dimension neutral type with no definition
or
> explanation.
A dimension-neutral type is a type that can have instances that are 3D
and
instances that are (in effect) 4D such as Roles. In the ontology
I am
using, an instance of such a type is assumed to be 3D unless it is
also an
instance
That makes your ontology logic non-monotonic. Do you really want
to do this? This puts all claims about consistency, etc. into a dark
hole, since there are a host of alternative semantics for such
languages, with no clear winner. Its impossible now to judge your
axioms until you tell us what logic you are using.
of an explicitly 4D type such as
'Role", in which case it is
(effectively) 4D.
Any given instance of a 3D type will be unique.
There may be many 4D
instance of Person, related to the corresponding 3D Person by some
relation
(fillsRole, isaTimeSliceOf) Thus there is only one 3D Matthew,
but many
TimeSlices such as Roles related to that unique Matthew.
I don't follow this. Can a 3D thing have timeslices? (What can
that possibly mean? Why do you call it 3D??)
In this representation, the
3D entity serves much the same purpose as a
"whole-life" individual in a 4D ontology. The main
logical difference (not
addressing the different mental models that the two conjure) is that
the 3D
entity can enter into time-indexed relations that a 4D entity
cannot.
Can you give an example?
This
provides (for me) the ability to use a syntax that is closer to the
English
linguistic usage, which I expect to be convenient for
language-understanding
applications. Thus we can say, in one logical notation:
Variant Notation: {a R y} translates to (R x y) in SKIF
1. {Matthew isanInstanceOf Person}
// not explicit yet as to 3D or 4D
2. {Matthew filledTheRoleOf EmployeeOfShell from Jan_1_1990
to
Dec_31_2007}
That has 5 arguments. What is it in SKIF?
// here Matthew *must* be 3D, by
the
//
restriction on the arguments of the 'filledtheRoleOf' relation
3. {Matthew filledTheRoleOf EmployeeOfLeeds from Jan_1_1980
to
Dec_31_2004} // here Matthew *must* be 3D, by the
//
restriction on the arguments of the 'filledtheRoleOf' relation
4. {EmployeeOfShell isaSubtypeOf HumanRole}
5. {EmployeeOfLeeds isaSubtypeOf HumanRole}
6. {MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds isanInstanceOf
EmployeeOfShell}
7. {MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds isanInstanceOf
EmployeeOfLeeds}
8. {MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds hasStartingTimePoint
Jan_1_1990}
9. {MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds hasStartingTimePoint
Dec_31_2004}
10. {MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds hasRoleFiller
Matthew}
------------------------------
Summary:
there is one Matthew, who is 3D (this
is clear from statements 2 and
3)
No, its not clear AT ALL. Why do those have this implication?
there is a
Role named MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds which is
related to the 3D Matthew by the relation 'hasRoleFiller' whose value
must
be a 3D Object.
The instances of Employee - which are TimeSlices
that are similar to 4D
TimeSlices
Slices OF WHAT?
- are all instances of Person, and there
can be many of them, for
each 3D person that fills those Roles.
The Role 'Employee' is a subtype of Role and a
subtype of Person. But
an instance of Employee cannot be an instance of a 3D Person. It
is an
instance of a TimeSlice of a Person.
This fails to make any sense at all. If A is a subtype of B, then
any instance of A is also an instance of B. (That is what 'subtype'
means.) So if Employee is a subtype of Person, then every instance
of Employee is an instance of Person, which you seem to explicitly
deny above.
One potentially confusing point is that I have not
defined an explicit
'3D' object type. An object is recognized as being 3D when it
is
constrained by being used in a relation that is meaningful only for 3D
types
and not for 4D types such as Roles. I could add an explicit
'Object3D' (I
experimented with one once) but did not see a real need for it.
It could be
added in if that would make the representation more understandable.
In that
case the additional assertion would be
added to the above:
0. {Matthew isanInstanceOf Object3D}
I hope that is clearer.
Sorry, it gets more and more opaque.
If you see any logical
inconsistencies, please show them in some logical
notation.
Well, the generally accepted definition of subtype is (in
CLIF)
(forall (x y)(iff (subtype x y)(forall (z)(if (z type x)(z type
y) )) ))
which I believe will get one a logical contradiction with the
above (after suitable changes of logical notation.)
PatH
Pat
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 matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:30 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> communication
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> > If one were to attempt to create instances
of a 3D Person
> > that were also
> > instances of a role, the multiplicity you refer to would be
a
> > problem. In
> > the illustration below, Matthew is an instance of 3D
Person,
> > not an instance
> > of Employee - if Matthew were an instance of Employee, the
problem
> you
> > describe would then present itself. But we can
create
> > instances of Role
> > such as an Employee that have a Person as a filler.
>
> MW: So far so good. A person is a filler for a role.
>
> > Nevertheless the *Role*
> > "Employee" is also a subtype of Person,
>
> MW: Now there you go and spoil it. If employee is a subtype of
person,
> it means that each instance of employee is a separate instance
of
> person, i.e. there are two of me. There is a relationship
between
> employee and person of course, but you need to let go of the
popular
> myth that it is subtype/supertype.
>
> > therefore an instance
> > of an Employee
> > is always an instance of a Person, implicitly though not
> > explicitly.
>
> MW: This is not an option. You are or you are not a person, and
it is
> very explicit.
>
> > But
> > the instances of a Role such as Employee are more like
time
> > slices and are
> > not identical to the instance of Person that fills the
role.
>
> MW: This is exactly right, i.e. an employee is not a person, but
a
> person for some period of time.
>
> > The
> > multiplicity is in the multiplicity of TimeSlices, as
there
> > are in a 4D
> > representation; every different TimeSlice is a different
> > entity.
>
> MW: That would be a stage theory approach to 4-dimensionalism.
I
> prefer what Catherine Hawley calls perdurantism, where states
are
> extended in time as well as space. So there is one object that
is
> the person, that is an extent from birth (say) to death, and
other
> ones for the employee, which are from start to end of the
> employment.
>
> > The way
> > that can work is illustrated below using OWL.
> > One comment I made was not phrased
properly:
> > [PC] > > (3) a person can be an instance
of multiple roles
> > in any given
> > time
> > > > interval
> > It would more accurately have been phrased
that:
> > (3a) an instance of Person can fill
multiple roles in any
> > given time
> > frame
>
> MW: That is OK.
>
> > (3b) a timeslice of Person can be an
instance of multiple roles
>
> MW: So is that.
>
> > (3c) an instance of Role in any given time
interval can be
> > an instance of
> > Person - because Person and Role are not disjoint.
>
> MW: This is not OK. The (3D) mistake you are making here is
that
> a person-at-a-point-in-time is not a person, but a
person-at-a-point-
> in-time. The person is able to pass through time and is present
at
> a large number of points in time.
The person-at-a-point-in-time only
> refers to that point in time, not the whole person. This is all a
lot
> more straightforward in 4D of course.
>
> > The illustration below should clarify what that means.
> >
> > Perhaps the non-intuitive element is that an
instance of a Role (a
> > TimeSLice) can also be an instance of a Person(a
> > dimension-neutral Type) -
>
> MW: You introduce dimension neutral type with no definition
or
> explanation.
>
> > because the type Person is not disjoint with the type
> > TimeSlice. In the
> > illustration below, Matthew is a Person, but the
instance
> > MatthewAsEmployeeOfShellAndLeeds is a Role - and also an
> > instance of Person
> > - but is not identical to
Matthew.
>
> MW: Now I have a counting problem. How many persons are
there?
>
> > It is more like a
> > TimeSlice of Matthew.
>
> MW: It is precisely a timeslice of Matthew, i.e. Matthew for a
period
> of time.
>
> > Even So, Matthew is not necessarily 3D or 4D, Matthew is
a
> > dimension-neutral
> > entity.
>
> MW: Well I'm afraid this is a problem. For a 4-dimensionalist
the
> only real world objects are spatio-temporal-extents. If it isn't
one
> of those, it just doesn't exist. Of course a 3 Dimensionalist
would
> have to say that I'm not extended in time, but pass through it.
Sigh.
>
> > If one were to use a formalism that permitted
relation
> > arities higher than
> > two, it would be possible to specify roles and their
time
> > limits without
> > using time slices. TimeSlices (among which are Roles)
are
> > syntactically
> > convenient when using OWL, they aren't logically
necessary.
>
> MW: I'm glad you have noticed how practical what I prefer to
call
> states are.
>
> > They have the
> > same logical effect as an explicit time-indexed assertion on
a
> > dimension-neutral entity.
>
> MW: Not really. You still have to decide whether it is or is
not
> a temporal part of the person.
>
> > In that case, there would be no
> > TimeSlices, only
> > time-indexed assertions (which are logically equivalent,
> > after translation,
> > to assertions on TimeSlices). The axioms to translate
the
> > two formalisms
> > are not here because this is a pure OWL representation.
> >
> > All instance of Role should have start and end
times
> > specified - they are
> > time slices.
> > Person is in this case neither exclusively 3D
nor 4D - time
> > slices can be
> > generated by making a person an instance of 'TimeSlice',
or
> > an instance of
> > Role, which is a subtype of TimeSlice.
>
> MW: Only 4D objects can have states (timeslices). I agree
role
> is a subtype of state (timeslice). So is person.
>
> > Every TimeSlice has a
> > start time and
> > end time.
>
> MW: So does person, which is why person is a state
(timeslice).
>
> > But an instance of Person can also have
attributes and
> > relations specified
> > by explicit time-indexed relations, without using
TimeSlices.
>
> MW: Not if you are a 4-dimensionalist. only spatio-temporal
extents
> can have times, relations must be timeless. You can't point to
the
> spatial extent of a relation.
> >
> > In the following note that an Employee is a
Role, and
> > something can be an
> > instance of an Object as well as a Role.
>
> MW: But it can't... except accidentally.
>
> > (definitions - some parts are from Cyc - are
abbreviated).
> >
> > HumanRole is a subtype of Person and
Role
>
> MW: No. Both person and role are subtype of stateOfPerson. A
role
> is a temporal part of a person, or if you prefer a role consists
of
> a person.
>
> MW: You will have a counting problem here, because each
instance
> of HumanRole will be counted when you count how many persons
there
> are.
>
> > Every HumanRole is a Role whose
RoleFiller is a Person
> > (restriction)
>
> MW: That is OK. This is equivalent to what I said above about
a
> role consisting of a person.
>
> > PersonWithOccupation is a subtype of
HumanRole
>
> MW: That is OK.
>
> MW: I don't read OWL in XML form, so I'll take your word that
what
> follows matches what is above.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Registered in England and Wales
> Registered number: 621148
> Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> >
> > <owl:Class
rdf:ID="Employee">
> >
<rdfs:comment>A Person who was employed by another
> > Agent in some
> > hiring event.</rdfs:comment>
> > <rdf:type
rdf:resource="#PersonType"/>
> > <rdf:type
rdf:resource="#RoleType"/>
> >
<rdfs:subClassOf
>
rdf:resource="#TemporaryRoleCreatedByEvent"/>
>
>
<rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:resource="#PersonWithOccupation"/>
> >
<rdfs:subClassOf>
> >
<owl:Restriction>
> >
<owl:onProperty>
>
> <owl:ObjectProperty
rdf:about="#isEmployedBy"/>
> >
</owl:onProperty>
> >
<owl:someValuesFrom
rdf:resource="#IntelligentAgent"/>
> >
</owl:Restriction>
> >
</rdfs:subClassOf>
> > </owl:Class>
> >
> > **** NOTE that 'employee' is a subtype of 'Person'
****
> >
> > <owl:Class
rdf:ID="EmployeeOfShell">
> > <rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:resource="#Employee "/>
> > <rdfs:comment>A person who is
an employee of
> Shell.</rdfs:comment>
> > </owl:Class>
> >
> > <owl:Class
rdf:ID="EmployeeOfLeeds">
> > <rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:resource="#Employee "/>
> > <rdfs:comment>A person who is
an employee of
> Leeds.</rdfs:comment>
> > </owl:Class>
> >
> > <!-- Matthew is employee of Shell from 1990 to 2008
> > Matthew is employee of Leeds
from 1980 to 2004
> > -->
> >
> > <Person rdf:ID="Matthew"/>
> >
> > <EmployeeOfShell
rdf:ID="MatthewAsEmployeeOfLeedsAndShell">
> > <rdf:type
rdf:resource="#EmployeeOfLeeds"/>
> >
<hasRoleFiller rdf:resource="#Matthew"/>
> >
<rdfs:comment>Matthew is an Employee of Both Shell
> > and Leeds from
> > the beginning of
> >
1990 to the end of 2004.</rdfs:comment>
> >
<hasStartingTimePoint rdf:ID="DTEG19900101T0000"/>
> >
<hasEndingTimePoint rdf:ID="DTEG20041212T2400"/>
> > </EmployeeOfShell >
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > 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
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:42 PM
> > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and
accurate
> > > communication
> > >
> > > Dear Pat,
> > >
> > > > This is a good issue, but I
think it has a resolution
> > > > without the problem
> > > > you envision, because in 3D the types of an entity
can change
> > > > with time.
> > > >
> > > > (1) employee is a role, which means
that it must be
> > time indexed.
> > > > (2) every instance of employee (in
some time interval) is
> > > > an instance of
> > > > person (in that time interval)
> > > > (3) a person can be an instance of
multiple roles in
> > any given time
> > > > interval
> > > > (4) in some time interval Matthew can
be an instance of
> > "Employee
> > > of
> > > > Shell" and "Employee of Leeds
U"
> > >
> > > MW: What you are missing is that EACH instance of
employee MUST be
> a
> > > separate person if employee is a subtype of person. To
put that the
> > > other way round, if I am just one person and there is
an employee
> > > subtype of person, then I either am or am not an
instance
> > of employee,
> > > but I can only be an instance of employee once.
> > >
> > > MW: If you think that a Person can be more than one
> > employee, then the
> > > relationship between person and employee is something
other than
> > > subtype/supertype.
> > >
> > > MW: If I were a 3D-ist then I would suggest somthing
like a
> > consists of
> > > relation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In 4D, I believe that the 4D worms
will intersect, and that
> > > > is another way
> > > > of viewing the same thing, but it is only
inconsistent if one
> > > > assigns the
> > > > same type "Person" to a 4d object in one
ontology and a 3D
> > > > object in the
> > > > other, and then tries to use the same term to
represent the
> > > > two different
> > > > types.
> > >
> > > MW: In 4D it is quite clear, and employee is a state of
a person,
> > > and the relationship between person and employee is
> > temporal part of.
> > > Both employee and person are subtypes of
state_of_person.
> > >
> > > MW: The interesting thing about temporal part of is
that most
> > > properties are inherited by substates (except for
example being
> > > a person for the whole of their life).
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Matthew West
> > > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > > Registered in England and Wales
> > > Registered number: 621148
> > > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
> > >
> > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.shell.com
> > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I need to be more specific.
Another day or two for my
> > > > more detailed
> > > > reply to PatH.
> > > >
> > > > Pat
> > > >
> > > > 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
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:18 AM
> > > > > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology
similarity and accurate
> > > > > communication
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear John,
> > > > >
> > > > > > MW> So for example, there are
ontologies where you will
> > > > find employee
> > > > > > > as a subtype of person, and
others that understand
> > it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know which way you are
advocating, but I'll
> > summarize my
> > > > > > position:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. There is a fundamental
distinction between natural
> > > > types, such
> > > > > > as Cat or
HumanBeing, and role types, such as Pet or
> > > > Employee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Every instance of a role
type is a subytpe of some
> > > > natural type,
> > > > > > but it may
also be a subtype of other role types.
> > > > > > HeartSpecialist
> > > > > > is a
subtype of Physician, which is a subtype of
> > HumanBeing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > MW: I do mean that employee is not a subtype
of person (or
> human
> > > > > being).
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: If we remind ourselves of what being a
subtype means,
> > > > it means that
> > > > > each instance of a subtype is an instance of
the supertype.
> > > > Now ler us
> > > > > look at an example. I am an employee of both
Shell and Leeds
> > > > > University.
> > > > > I have different employee numbers, very
different salaries, and
> > > > > different start dates. Now if employee is a
subtype of
> > person then
> > > > > each of these is a person, i.e. there are two
of me.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: This kind of situation is true of roles
generally,
> > you can play
> > > > > multiple roles at the same time and the same
role multiple
> times
> > > > > (and at the same time). These do not all
generate new people.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: So the question is: what is the
relationship between a role
> > > > > and the person who plays is. Fortunately, as
a
> > > > 4-dimensionalist, there
> > > > > is a simple answer. The role is a temporal
part of the
> > person that
> > > > > plays the role, or if you prefer, the
person for a
> > period of time,
> > > > > rather than for the whole of their life.
> > > > >
> > > > > MW: This is not so different from the
question of the
> > vase and the
> > > > > piece of clay. Are pots subtypes of clay? Or
is the pot
> > a different
> > > > > object than the piece of clay it is made
from?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew West
> > > > > Reference Data Architecture and Standards
Manager
> > > > > Shell International Petroleum Company
Limited
> > > > > Registered in England and Wales
> > > > > Registered number: 621148
> > > > > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1
7NA, United Kingdom
> > > > >
> > > > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796
336538
> > > > > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > http://www.shell.com
> > > > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|