ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:17 +0100
Message-id: <48AD9459.1070000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Antoinette,    (01)

It took me forever, but it's there now, at 
www.hypercube.co.uk/edmcouncil where the upper ontology is at the bottom 
(don't ask!) and is caleld Global Terms. This is in line with trying to 
come up with a way of presenting business "facts and things" in a way 
that does not scare away business people. It took a long long time to 
agree on a presentation layout that everyone was happy with, and it was 
touch and go whether the upper ontology would make it onto the page at all!    (02)

A bit rough and ready as you'll agree!    (03)

Mike    (04)

Antoinette Arsic wrote:    (05)

>Is it possible to see what that looks like Mike?
>
>Thanks,
>Antoinette
>
>SGIS
>Antoinette Arsic
>Sr. Systems Engineer
>8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 100
>Vienna, VA 22182
>703-506-8621
>443-567-2703
>aarsic@xxxxxxxx
>www.SGIS.com
>________________________________________
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Bennett 
>[mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:41 AM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications
>
>Hi Patrick,
>
>That looks great! I've pulled it up in TopBraid Composer which gives a
>good view of the relationships between things, and it seems the network
>of relationships makes it easy to unambiguously identify something.
>
>I've used a lot of multiple inheritance to pin down meanings, but not
>nearly as much as you have. Also I have used John's categories of First
>Order, Second Order and Third Order Thing, continuous versus Occurrent,
>Abstract v Concrete and applied them to almost everything at the top
>level (nothing is just a Thing). That left things like parts, sets,
>groups, substances and commodities which I see you've addressed quite
>rigorously (I may use your commodities structure for commodities trading
>terms).
>
>I've just about finished the first iteration financial services model,
>after which I'll review and try to align (and share) the upper ontology.
>In order to capture the meanings and relationships of items in the
>financial securities world I've had to do a rough upper ontology for
>each of geography, finance, maths, legal, time, information and process.
>I expect to be able to align / replace the financial part with the REA
>material. Incidentally the financial world recognises such a thing as a
>Legal Entity (as distinct from Legal Agent which would be a second order
>Thing) so my structure in that area is necessarily different from COSMO.
>This is a hot topic in financial services right now so that part of my
>model may change.
>
>One comment: I defined Role as a particular kind of Object Property
>(relating an Actor to an Activity) and derived all Roles from that,
>rather than using a Class. I think this was in line with what I saw in
>some other examples. Incidentally the role of a Party in a contract,
>transaction, loan etc. is not quite the same so I've called it a Part
>(as in the Marx Brothers' "Party of the first Part"). Party and Actor
>are defined as second order Things, with an identification relationship
>to a First Order Thing.
>
>Many thanks!
>
>Mike Bennett
>
>Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mike,
>> The current version of the COSMO ontology is available at
>>http://micra.com/COSMO, which has the OWL ontology and a WinWord file with a
>>discussion of the ontology.  This version has over 5000 types (classes), but
>>as yet has been supplemented with the Longman vocabulary words only up to
>>the E's.  So it needs months of work yet to get to the point where it can be
>>tested.  The OWL file can be viewed conveniently in Protégé.
>>
>>  The process you describe for building your ontology seems reasonable.
>>For specialized purposes, elements from existing ontologies can often be
>>reused so as to minimize effort, but it is necessary to use a whole
>>foundation ontology only when one wants one's application to interoperate
>>with another ontology built from the same foundation.  Unfortunately, there
>>is as yet no foundation ontology that has a consensus and a wide user base
>>that makes it an obvious choice.
>>
>> If you find anything in the COSMO that fits your purposes, do feel free to
>>use it.  If you need any elaboration, don't hesitate to get in touch - I'll
>>try to help as best I can.  If you see anything that looks questionable, or
>>basic concepts that appear to be missing, I'd like to know about that too.
>>
>>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 Mike Bennett
>>>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:40 AM
>>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications
>>>
>>>Patrick,
>>>
>>>That's very interesting. I have been working on an ontology for
>>>financial securities, and my first instinct was to create a set of high
>>>level "Things" from which the more specialised versions that inhabit
>>>the
>>>securities world could be derived. For example a security is a special
>>>kind of contract. It made immediate sense to put these in different
>>>packages or modules.
>>>
>>>At the top I have used the first layer of John's KR ontology, as the
>>>use
>>>of first and second order things helps resolve a lot of the problems
>>>that have been plaguing the world of financial definitions (e.g.
>>>Parties
>>>versus Legal Entities). Similarly the third order gives context.
>>>Continuant versus Occurrent allows one to model events, processes and
>>>activities alongside continuant things. And so on.
>>>
>>>Then I figured that for each of these high level Things there would be
>>>a
>>>kind of syntax - e.g. a Contract always has two principal Parties.
>>>These
>>>soon mushroomed into a full set of grammars for those high level types.
>>>It makes sense to have them in separate packages (legal, financial and
>>>so on). I would have liked to use the existing upper ontologies like
>>>SUMO but these do not use John's top level distinctions, so I would
>>>only
>>>use them as a checklist of classes. As I mentioned in a recent
>>>teleconference, I intend to replace the accounting / financial stuff
>>>with Bill McCarthy's REA ontology. Like Bill I have started to refer to
>>>these high level types of Thing as Archetypes - they are not
>>>stereotypes
>>>as they would be in UML because they are also part of the model
>>>content.
>>>
>>>I should add that my stuff is all very untidy and provisional at the
>>>moment. I have a commitment to provide views that naive business people
>>>can interpret without training, which means outputting the material as
>>>simple diagrams and tables, and for this I have done the whole thing in
>>>OWL extensions to UML (using stereotypes for the archetypes, which are
>>>also by convention OWL Classes, Object Properties etc.). However at
>>>present it is a little too untidy to show around. The UML tool I use
>>>also lets me have a toolbar for each modular set of archetypes,
>>>creating
>>>an editing environment for the ontology material itself.
>>>
>>>I would be interested in seeing what you are doing and whether I can
>>>replace or align my high level stuff with some of this. As it is I
>>>realise I need to review and streamline the relationship (Object
>>>Property) archetypes at some point as they are all over the place. I
>>>would want to sub-class them from very general kinds of verb and
>>>relationship.
>>>
>>>I've been promising people that as soon as it is readable enough to
>>>share I would want to share it with other ontology practitioners. I am
>>>very much a "business" user of all this, so I have a lot to learn on
>>>the
>>>theoretical side but a very clear idea of how this needs to be
>>>presented
>>>to business.
>>>
>>>I have not given a lot of thought to the interaction of the different
>>>modular parts, I think this is a very important idea which I need to
>>>think about. The lesson from OO and from this thread would be that the
>>>interfaces are important. What does that mean in an ontology model? I
>>>am
>>>not a fan of the approach of importing an ontology and putting
>>>OWL:SameAs relationships all over the place. I totally agree that a top
>>>level, structured and modular ontology would be the way to go. There is
>>>nothing in OWL for all this at present, as I understand it.
>>>
>>>One of my packages is a "Core" set but this is very fluid and will
>>>remain so until I have substantially completed the main model content,
>>>as this throws up necessary changes to the grammars. So I have not
>>>mapped the package dependencies as yet.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Mike Bennett
>>>
>>>Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>RE:
>>>>[JS]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>What makes Apple's OS X more intelligible, efficient, and robust
>>>>>than Vista is the fundamental principle at the core of Unix from
>>>>>day 1:  modularity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>> The same principle is what I have suggested for a foundation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>ontology
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>that could be widely accepted, if developed in a fully open manner by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>representative sample of ontology developers and users.  The 'kernel'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>be the 'conceptual defining vocabulary' ('defining' is only an analogy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>human dictionaries, not a mathematical 'definition').  It is kept as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>small
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>as possible by finding the set of primitive concepts necessary and
>>>>sufficient to specify the meanings of all specialized concepts, as
>>>>combinations of the primitives.  The size of such a minimal inventory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>primitives needs to be determined by experiment - starting with a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>plausible
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>core, and seeing how well that serves to specify meanings of things
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>people
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>use in application.  But there is what I consider strong suggestive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>evidence
>>>>from work done in the late 1980's by Cheng-ming Guo, with Yorick Wilks
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>(references below).  He analyzed the Longman defining vocabulary of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>2100
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>words and concluded that in fact there were only 1400 that could not
>>>>themselves be defined (lexicographically) by use of the basic 1400.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>He
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>concluded that these words corresponded to about 3280 senses, on which
>>>>definitions of any other word can be 'grounded'.  This suggests a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>starting
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>point for experiments to test the same principle with ontologies and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>logical
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>specifications rather than words and dictionary definitions.
>>>> The function of the foundation ontology would then be to serve as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>'interlingua' into which knowledge from any application could be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>converted
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>and reused by any other application.  This will permit a very high
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>level of
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>modularity, requiring only that local knowledge be convertible in to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>common "defining" language of the foundation ontology.  Keeping the
>>>>foundation ontology small will make it easier for people to learn it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>and use
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>it.
>>>> There are other considerations that would have to be taken into
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>account
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>to improve the likelihood of wide adoption, such as the development of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>good natural-language interface. In fact I think that would be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>essential to
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>success of this tactic.  But the chances of wide adoption are slim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>unless
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>some way can be found to get funding that can support a team of **at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>least
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>50** people half-time to hammer out the basic structure.  I also think
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>such a project would stall unless all logically compatible alternative
>>>>representations desired by different groups were allowed, with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>translations
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>('bridging axioms') to convert each to the other.
>>>> I am currently working to develop a starting foundation ontology of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>type, beginning with an OWL representation of the 2100 Longman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>defining
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>words.  This will need to be supplemented with rules and converted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>into an
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>FOL representation to achieve the expressiveness required to serve as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>a true
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>basis for translation of knowledge expressed in many different ways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>This
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>first step to complete just the OWL version will still take at least
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>four
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>months.
>>>> That is the kind of modularity that I envision that will succeed in
>>>>providing the functionality of an ontology, for many different
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>purposes, and
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>permit the transfer of knowledge among modules.  Then modules can be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>mixed
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>and matched with an efficient means for the modules to communicate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>their
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>results to each other.
>>>>  Existing upper ontologies were not (1) structured as conceptual
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>defining
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>vocabularies; (2) fully open to alternative logically consistent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>elements
>>>>from any source; (3) tested for functionality by requiring that they
>>>support
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>an effective natural-language interface, exposed to the public; (4)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>funded
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>in a way that permits input from the many different communities that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>working on knowledge representation.  However competent they may be
>>>>internally, I think that broad usability will require all of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>above, and
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>such a project has not yet been funded.  So the question of whether
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>such an
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>approach will work is yet to be answered.
>>>> One would suppose that building such modularity for an operating
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>system
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>would be a lot easier, since the number of fundamental elements
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(bytes,
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>numbers, strings, communication ports, permissions, etc) are a lot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>fewer
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>than in a human language.  So your conclusion that Microsoft blew it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>seems
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>well justified.
>>>>
>>>>Pat
>>>>
>>>>Patrick Cassidy
>>>>MICRA, Inc.
>>>>908-561-3416
>>>>cell: 908-565-4053
>>>>cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>References to Guo's work with the Longman:
>>>>
>>>>Guo, Cheng-ming (1989)  Constructing a machine-tractable dictionary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>from
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>"Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English"  (Ph. D. Thesis), New
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Mexico
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>State University.
>>>>
>>>>Guo, Cheng-ming (editor) Machine Tractable Dictionaries: Design and
>>>>Construction,  Ablex Publishing Co., Norwood NJ (1995)
>>>>
>>>>Yorick Wilks, Brian Slator, and Louise Guthrie, Electric Words:
>>>>Dictionaries, Computers, and Meanings, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(1996).
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>>>>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:07 AM
>>>>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>>>Subject: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications
>>>>>
>>>>>In response to legal requirements by various governments and the EU,
>>>>>Microsoft has released a massive dump of protocols, binary file
>>>>>formats, and other specifications for Windows Vista (including the
>>>>>.NET Framework), Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, Office 2007,
>>>>>Exchange Server 2007, and Office SharePoint Server 2007:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jun08/06-
>>>>>30InteropUpdatePR.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the good news.  The bad news is that people who have looked
>>>>>at this dump have summarized the results in one pithy observation:
>>>>>
>>>>>  In order to understand any of it, you must understand *all* of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>it.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Another comment is that the complexity of this dump makes the
>>>>>successful
>>>>>reverse engineering by open-source developers seem like a miracle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>In
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>fact, there are reports that Microsoft employees read the open source
>>>>>documentation in order to understand the products they're working on.
>>>>>
>>>>>This complexity explains how Microsoft managed to spend more money on
>>>>>developing Vista than NASA spent on the Apollo mission to the moon.
>>>>>It also explains how Apple, with a fraction of the resources of MSFT,
>>>>>was able to produce a more stable, more efficient, more secure OS
>>>>>that also provides more functionality and a better user interface.
>>>>>
>>>>>The moral of this story is that writing complete specifications
>>>>>cannot, by itself, make a system intelligible.  Furthermore, the
>>>>>task of rewriting those spec's in a formal language, by itself,
>>>>>will do nothing to make them more intelligible.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes Apple's OS X more intelligible, efficient, and robust
>>>>>than Vista is the fundamental principle at the core of Unix from
>>>>>day 1:  modularity.
>>>>>
>>>>>The original NT, which was based on the same foundation as OS/2,
>>>>>was very modular until version 3.5.  But for version 4.0, Bill Gates
>>>>>made an incredible blunder:  he edicted that the GUI interfaces for
>>>>>Windows had to be incorporated into the OS kernel.  That decision
>>>>>destroyed the modularity, increased the complexity of the kernel by
>>>>>many orders of magnitude, and enabled bugs in the GUI to crash the
>>>>>entire system.
>>>>>
>>>>>Modularity is essential for any large project of any kind,
>>>>>including formal ontologies.
>>>>>
>>>>>John Sowa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>>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
> 
>
>  
>    (06)


-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd. 
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: 020 7917 9522
Mob: 07721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk    (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)

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