Please note the change of my email address: (01)
syama_chaudhuri11@xxxxxxxxxxx (02)
Thanks, (03)
Dr. Chaudhuri (04)
DR. SYAMA CHAUDHURI
Address: 168 Westway Ste 201 Greenbelt
MD 20770
Phone: 301-982-0353
Email: syama_chaudhuri11@xxxxxxxxxxx (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: <ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:51 AM
Subject: ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 76, Issue 7 (06)
> Send ontolog-forum mailing list submissions to
> ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ontolog-forum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ontolog-forum digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Ockham (Duane Nickull)
> 2. Re: Ockham (John F. Sowa)
> 3. Re: Ockham (Richard H. McCullough)
> 4. Re: Ockham (John F. Sowa)
> 5. Re: Ockham (Azamat)
> 6. Re: Ockham (Richard H. McCullough)
> 7. Re: Ockham (John F. Sowa)
> 8. Re: Ockham (Richard H. McCullough)
> 9. context (Richard H. McCullough)
> 10. CFP - Conference on Terminology and AI - TIA2009 - Toulouse
> (France), Nov. 2009 (Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles)
> 11. Re: Ockham (Azamat)
> 12. Re: context (Richard H. McCullough)
> 13. Re: context (Randall R Schulz)
> 14. Re: Ockham (Duane Nickull)
> 15. ANN: The GoodRelations Annotator: How any business can get
> onto the Web of Data - today! (Martin Hepp (UniBW))
> 16. semantic distance visual analyser? (paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx)
> 17. ISO merged ontology effort "MCO" (Patrick Cassidy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:49:41 -0700
> From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F. Sowa"
> <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <C6017AF5.20E1%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Richard:
>
> On 4/7/09 9:31 PM, "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> How about a real mapping, instead of a formal mapping.
>> I'll stick to the example "John F. Sowa is a human."
> DN: That statement only maps symbols to symbols, using symbols as
> conjunctions. Each of these symbols has a different meaning in different
> contexts.
>>
>> I can go on the internet and Google "John F. Sowa".
>> I can find out where he lives, and see him with my own eyes.
>> I can tell whether he is human or not.
> DN: again - all of these things are symbols that represent a concept and
> are
> not the only symbols/terms that can represent that concept. IN any case,
> assuming that any set/collection of symbols is an ontology is incorrect as
> ontology work is done in the conceptual region. How useful to a person
> from
> the Czech republic is that information if they do not speak english?
> Ontology work is done at a higher plane that symbols.
>>
>> Alternatively, if you're looking for a more "social" solution,
>> you can ask a panel of humans if "John F. Sowa is a human."?
>> Isn't that the essence of shared knowledge?
> DN: perhaps if they all speak English and the context is that john is
> either
> hman or not, yes. If you cannot map that collection of English symbols
> to
> concepts, it is utterly useless, about the same as if I said to you
> "glofdg
> gobhh f mdnqu opdjsfknojkfdds".
>
> Formally, I could also aver that John Sowa is an instance of the class of
> living mammals that inherits from a superclass of animals, inheriting from
> a
> superclass of "things that are conscious". Unless I map all of those
> labels
> to a concept, they are also meaning less. There are also about ten
> thousand
> other ways I could describe that binary relationship with symbols.
>
> Ich kann auch in Deutsche "john ist eine mann" spreche und das is auch
> rightig. Bestimmt!
>
> What does "human" mean? "John Sowa" is not his name (notwithstanding the
> fact we never agreed on the semantics of "name") - it is a label he has
> the
> right to use since he has passed some certification process by some
> government agency to their satisfaction that he has that right.
>
> Everything I say is inferred differently by everyone on this list. That
> is
> because all I have done is hit a keyboard and produced a set of symbols.
> The meaning of these symbols is different in different contexts.
>
> Sorry to sound agitated but I really urge you to consider the fact you
> might
> have mis-interpreted the previous emails.
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> http://mkrmke.org
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:04:35 -0400
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <49DC3E73.2030008@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dick,
>
> You're confusing apples and spaghetti.
>
> RHM> How about a real mapping, instead of a formal mapping.
> > I'll stick to the example "John F. Sowa is a human."
> > I can go on the internet and Google "John F. Sowa".
> > I can find out where he lives, and see him with my own eyes.
> > I can tell whether he is human or not.
>
> There are many good reasons for analyzing and talking about
> real mappings:
>
> 1. You are designing a robot that has to map symbols to
> input sensors in order to move around and do useful work.
>
> 2. You are a psychologist who is studying the neural and
> linguistic mechanisms that connect human perception
> and action to language processing.
>
> 3. You are a philosopher who is trying to develop a
> comprehensive framework for analyzing the relationships
> between language, thought, perception, and action.
>
> All of those activities (and many more) are worthy pursuits.
>
> If you are designing a system such as mKE and mKR, it is
> good to study the work of those people in order to understand
> how your piece of the puzzle fits with theirs. That is
> a worthy endeavor, and I would encourage you to continue.
>
> But it is also important to recognize that for the purpose
> of giving a precise definition of mKR so that programmers
> can implement it and connect it to their systems, you have
> to focus on the specific details of the symbols and how they
> are related to one another.
>
> Chris Menzel, for example, is a professor of philosophy
> at Texas A & M, and he has studied, published, and taught
> many of the philosophical issues about contexts from many
> different points of view.
>
> But Chris has also collaborated with Pat, and me, and many
> other people in designing logics like CL and IKL. When we're
> doing that, we focus on the issues that are relevant to giving
> a precise definition of the language.
>
> But we also use CL and related languages for a broader range
> of purposes. When we do that, we might use CL to address
> issues such as #1, #2, or #3 above. But then we admit that
> we have switched from growing apples to cooking spaghetti.
> We don't confuse the two kinds of activities.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 00:10:42 -0700
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <D6781B463FBD43FB8A5294ED7F9C32AD@rhm8200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Dick,
>>
>> You're confusing apples and spaghetti.
>>
>> There are many good reasons for analyzing and talking about
>> real mappings:
>>
>> But it is also important to recognize that for the purpose
>> of giving a precise definition of mKR so that programmers
>> can implement it and connect it to their systems, you have
>> to focus on the specific details of the symbols and how they
>> are related to one another.
>>
>> But we also use CL and related languages for a broader range
>> of purposes. When we do that, we might use CL to address
>> issues such as #1, #2, or #3 above. But then we admit that
>> we have switched from growing apples to cooking spaghetti.
>> We don't confuse the two kinds of activities.
>>
>> John
>>
> Yes, I do confuse these two activities.
> Isn't it strange that I think about real mappings
> when someone challenges me to define the "meaning" of my language?
> Why do I think that "meaning" is connected to reality?
> Obviously, "meaning" refers to manipulation of meaningless symbols.
> Which is what I said several months ago.
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:00:41 -0400
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <49DC67B9.3000301@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dick,
>
> The fundamental point we've been trying to say is that
> most digital computers have no eyes, ears, feelings,
> or anything that resembles human "mental" symbols.
>
> RHM> Isn't it strange that I think about real mappings when
> > someone challenges me to define the "meaning" of my language?
> > Why do I think that "meaning" is connected to reality?
>
> It isn't strange at all if you're talking to your Ayn Randian
> friends. But it is extremely strange if you expect any
> digital computer to understand what you mean by context.
>
> But you also say that you are using mKR not only to
> communicate with computers, but also to communicate with
> other human beings who do have eyes, ears, and feelings.
>
> That is a fine thing to do. But in that case, I suggest
> that there's a better language for that purpose than mKR.
> It's called English.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:42:51 +0300
> From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <007a01c9b83f$272bc480$a104810a@homepc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> The great minds, as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, tried to teach us
> one
> simple truth:
>
> It is a big loss if the nature of symbols and signs with their
> signification
> and meanings is misunderstood or corrupted. There are the sorts of things
> which just signify or point out and the kinds of things which are
> signified
> and pointed out.
>
> There are maps and territories. There are paper moneys (now easily
> reproduced as toilet paper) and the precious metals (a valuable piece of
> reality) which value they represent. There is an almost unlimited $531
> trillion market of speculative financial instruments and the limited real
> property housing stock (a solid piece of reality).
>
> Artificial symbols and signs, verbal and nonverbal, all sorts of hyperreal
> creations, are today harmfully domineering artifacts, fully replacing the
> real life entities.
>
> It is good time for the reality check: to remember that there are symbols
> and signs but also real things in the world, which relationships the human
> ideas are designed to mediate. For the first ones are just the surrogates
> and substitutes, and skillful manipulating with them is no more a big
> deed.
> What counts is how they are corresponding (or mapping) to the bits and
> portions and pieces of the world, that is, their real meanings and
> significations. What counts how the human ideas mediate all such
> meaningful
> connections.
>
>
>
> Summing up:
>
> Reality and just reality, with its classes of entities and relations, with
> its real laws and constraints, is the only ultimate source of all
> substantial meanings and truths.
>
>
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>
>
> PS: "Every sign is also a thing". Augustine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
>> Dick,
>>
>> The fundamental point we've been trying to say is that
>> most digital computers have no eyes, ears, feelings,
>> or anything that resembles human "mental" symbols.
>>
>> RHM> Isn't it strange that I think about real mappings when
>> > someone challenges me to define the "meaning" of my language?
>> > Why do I think that "meaning" is connected to reality?
>>
>> It isn't strange at all if you're talking to your Ayn Randian
>> friends. But it is extremely strange if you expect any
>> digital computer to understand what you mean by context.
>>
>> But you also say that you are using mKR not only to
>> communicate with computers, but also to communicate with
>> other human beings who do have eyes, ears, and feelings.
>>
>> That is a fine thing to do. But in that case, I suggest
>> that there's a better language for that purpose than mKR.
>> It's called English.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:42:36 -0700
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <E0B72A6E07454370984140249F9E4A91@rhm8200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> John
>
> I wish to make my position absolutely clear.
>
> I am a spaghetti man.
>>From day one, I designed mKR as a philosopher.
> I made every decision based on real maps.
> I tested my ideas by translating Ayn Rand's
> philosophical statements into mKR.
> I translated Aristotle's syllogisms into mKR.
>
> I studied Logic [not including model theory].
> I studied Conceptual Graphs.
> I studied Formal Concept Analysis.
> I studied Situation Theory.
>
> I simplified English grammar.
> I focused on the essential properties of actions,
> and the characterization of changes by measuring
> space, time.
> I defined context.
> I integrated the UNIX-shell concepts of actions,
> procedures, variables, control structures.
> I integrated the Unicon concepts of generators
> and goal-directed evaluation.
>
> I created mKR in a form that is consistent
> with all of the above theories.
> I like mKR.
> I think in mKR.
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
>> Dick,
>>
>> You're confusing apples and spaghetti.
>>
>> RHM> How about a real mapping, instead of a formal mapping.
>> > I'll stick to the example "John F. Sowa is a human."
>> > I can go on the internet and Google "John F. Sowa".
>> > I can find out where he lives, and see him with my own eyes.
>> > I can tell whether he is human or not.
>>
>> There are many good reasons for analyzing and talking about
>> real mappings:
>>
>> 1. You are designing a robot that has to map symbols to
>> input sensors in order to move around and do useful work.
>>
>> 2. You are a psychologist who is studying the neural and
>> linguistic mechanisms that connect human perception
>> and action to language processing.
>>
>> 3. You are a philosopher who is trying to develop a
>> comprehensive framework for analyzing the relationships
>> between language, thought, perception, and action.
>>
>> All of those activities (and many more) are worthy pursuits.
>>
>> If you are designing a system such as mKE and mKR, it is
>> good to study the work of those people in order to understand
>> how your piece of the puzzle fits with theirs. That is
>> a worthy endeavor, and I would encourage you to continue.
>>
>> But it is also important to recognize that for the purpose
>> of giving a precise definition of mKR so that programmers
>> can implement it and connect it to their systems, you have
>> to focus on the specific details of the symbols and how they
>> are related to one another.
>>
>> Chris Menzel, for example, is a professor of philosophy
>> at Texas A & M, and he has studied, published, and taught
>> many of the philosophical issues about contexts from many
>> different points of view.
>>
>> But Chris has also collaborated with Pat, and me, and many
>> other people in designing logics like CL and IKL. When we're
>> doing that, we focus on the issues that are relevant to giving
>> a precise definition of the language.
>>
>> But we also use CL and related languages for a broader range
>> of purposes. When we do that, we might use CL to address
>> issues such as #1, #2, or #3 above. But then we admit that
>> we have switched from growing apples to cooking spaghetti.
>> We don't confuse the two kinds of activities.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:25:26 -0400
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <49DCA5C6.3040601@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dick,
>
> Now we are getting to the fundamental misunderstanding.
>
> RHM> From day one, I designed mKR as a philosopher.
>
> You are missing the crucial distinction between the
> word 'design' and the word 'define'.
>
> To design anything, it is good to think in very general
> terms, as a philosopher or other generalist.
>
> But a computer is not a philosopher. It is not a human being
> that has feelings. It is just a very fast, but very stupid
> machine. It cannot appreciate your philosophy, your
> intentions, or whatever you mean by context.
>
> When I designed conceptual graphs, I was thinking like a
> philosopher, and a linguist, and a computer scientist,
> and a programmer. I wanted to make sure that they were
> suitable for applications by all those kinds of people.
>
> But -- and here is an enormous ***BUT*** -- when I defined
> the conceptual graphs and the operations on them, I specified
> them at the lowest possible level of detail. Those specs
> are designed to be carried out by a very low-level, very
> fast, but very stupid computer that doesn't have a clue
> about the intentions or the context or the world outside.
>
> Remember that Chris Menzel is a professional philosopher.
> But he understands the difference between the verbs 'design'
> and 'define'.
>
> RHM> I created mKR in a form that is consistent
> > with all of the above theories.
>
> That is an excellent approach for you to think about, but
> your computer understands less about those theories than
> my cat.
>
> RHM> I like mKR. I think in mKR.
>
> Good for you. But the partisans of LISP, APL, Prolog,
> C, Java, and many other programming languages make
> exactly the same statements about their favorite
> languages. All those languages were *designed* by people
> who also had grand theoretical ideas and they designed
> their languages to be consistent with their theories.
>
> But they *defined* those languages at a very low level
> that could be processed by a very stupid computer that
> did not understand anything about those theories.
>
> If you want your language to be used and implemented
> on the kinds of computers we have today, I suggest
> that you do the same.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 06:15:36 -0700
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <7C65DD48D8D9456A8C5DCE048DB86D3F@rhm8200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> But you also say that you are using mKR not only to
>> communicate with computers, but also to communicate with
>> other human beings who do have eyes, ears, and feelings.
>>
>> That is a fine thing to do. But in that case, I suggest
>> that there's a better language for that purpose than mKR.
>> It's called English.
>>
>> John
>>
> mKR has one advantage over English -- it avoids the trivia
> of English grammar, and helps me to focus on essentials.
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 06:27:43 -0700
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] context
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <E66925A8433D4C398DBC2F7C023A0742@rhm8200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Dick,
>>
>> The fundamental point we've been trying to say is that
>> most digital computers have no eyes, ears, feelings,
>> or anything that resembles human "mental" symbols.
>>
>> RHM> Isn't it strange that I think about real mappings when
>> > someone challenges me to define the "meaning" of my language?
>> > Why do I think that "meaning" is connected to reality?
>>
>> It isn't strange at all if you're talking to your Ayn Randian
>> friends. But it is extremely strange if you expect any
>> digital computer to understand what you mean by context.
>>
> No, I don't expect a computer to understand my context.
> But I have defined context to be an explicit list of propositions,
> and I expect a computer to be able to manipulate that
> list of propositions.
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:31:14 +0200
> From: Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles <aussenac@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] CFP - Conference on Terminology and AI -
> TIA2009 - Toulouse (France), Nov. 2009
> To: Elsnet-list@xxxxxxxxxx, www-webont-wg@xxxxxx,
> semanticweb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, seweb-list@xxxxxxxx,
> ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <49DCA722.4080403@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251"
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 8th Terminology and Artificial Intelligence Conference - TIA 2009
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IRIT - Toulouse (France), November, 18-20 2009
>
> First Call for Papers
> Call Deadline: 15-Jul-2009
>
> http://www.irit.fr/TIA09/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** The Conference **
>
> In all specialized fields, knowledge is stored and disseminated in the
> form of documents. In some cases, document management (ranking according
> to relevance to a query, for instance) and acquisition and extraction of
> knowledge for indexing, modelling and conceptualization rely on
> terminological and linguistic studies. Hence, terminology and linguistics
> supply key concepts to other disciplines such as natural language
> processing, information science and knowledge engineering. Conversely,
> these disciplines bring to light new problems and issues and present new
> challenges and perspectives for terminology and linguistics. For nearly 15
> years, TIA conferences have provided a forum for researchers working in
> these various fields to come together.
> The 2009 TIA Conference will focus mainly - although not exclusively - on
> terms and terminological systems. Terms are used as focal points for
> knowledge structuring in many applications, including ontologies,
> thesauri, and other conventional terminological resources such as
> specialized dictionaries and terminological databases. A number of
> semantic relations between terms may be identified (and may vary depending
> on the application). However, although the aim of all of these
> applications is a certain degree of stability, the linguistic nature of
> terms and of the relations they share raises many questions. Which
> relations should be represented in specific applications? How should terms
> and the relations between them be represented? How can the relations in
> terminological resources and their linguistic representation in texts be
> linked?
>
> Submitted papers may address theoretical or methodological issues.
> Interdisciplinary work that focuses on collaboration between disciplines
> when dealing with terminological issues is strongly encouraged.
>
> ** Topics **
>
> Proposals addressing the theme ''Terms and terminological systems'' are
> strongly encouraged. However, other proposals dealing with innovative
> theoretical, methodological, or practical questions are also welcome.
> Possible topics include:
> - Semantic theories and terminology in relation to text linguistics and
> ontologies (especially theoretical linguistic approaches to describing
> terms and terminological structures)
> - Representation of terms and semantic or conceptual relations in specific
> types of data structures (ontologies, thesauri, etc.)
> - Representation of terms and semantic or conceptual relations in
> multilingual applications
> -ntological resources from different languages, communities or time frames
> - Theoretical and technical problems in automated or manual compilation of
> terminologies using mono- or multi-lingual corpora
> - Methods for automatic terminology structuring (identification of
> relations between terms, linking of terms to specific fields of knowledge)
> - Studies on the relationships between ontologies and terminologies and/or
> thesauri:
> Use of terminologies to compile and structure ontologies
> Use of ontological modelling for a better understanding of the semantics
> of thesauri and terminologies
>
> - Evaluation methods and criteria, and validation of terminologies
> - Problems in compiling multilingual terminologies
> - Reuse, standardization, comparison and merging of terminological or
> ontological resources
> - Applications of terminological resources (the Semantic Web, information
> retrieval, technology watch, question answering, document management,
> ranking and/or classification, etc.)
>
>
> ** Paper submission **
>
> Important dates
> - Deadline for submissions : 15 July 2009
> - Notification of acceptance : 10 September 2009
> - Final version of accepted papers due: 1 November 2009
> - Dates of the conference : 18-20 November 2009
>
> Papers, written either in French or in English, should not be more than 10
> pages long, in Times 12 single space,
> with more or less 3000 words, including figures, examples and references.
> Stylesheets and details about paper submissions can be found at:
> http://www.irit.fr/TIA09/Soumission.html
>
>
> * *Program Committee **
>
> Chairs
> Marie-Claude L'Homme (OLST, Universite' de Montre'al, Canada)
> Sylvie Szulman (LIPN, Universite' Paris XIII, France)
>
> Members
> Guadalupe Aguado (Universitad Polite'cnica de Madrid, Spain)
> Amparo Alcina (Universitat Jaume-I, Spain)
> Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles (IRIT, France)
> Caroline Barrie`re (NRC, Canada)
> Olivier Bodenreider (National Library of Medicine, USA)
> Maria Teresa Cabre' (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain)
> Jean Charlet (AP-HP & INSERM, France)
> Farid Cerbah (Dassault-aviation, France)
> Anne Condamines (CLLE-ERSS, France)
> James Cussens (University of York, UK)
> Lyne Da Sylvia (EBSI, Montre'al, Canada)
> Vale'rie Delavigne (INCa, France)
> Patrick Drouin (OLST, Montre'al, Canada)
> Pamela Faber (Universidad de Granada, Spain)
> Ulrich Heid (Universita"t Stuttgart, Germany)
> Kyo Kageura (University of Tokyo, Japan)
> Fidelia Ibekwe (Universite', Lyon 3, France)
> Adeline Nazarenko (LIPN, Universite' Paris 13, France)
> Pascale Se'billot (IRISA, France)
> Koichi Takeuchi (Okayama University, Japan)
> Rita Temmerman (Erasmushogeschool, Belgium)
> Yannick Toussaint (LORIA, France)
> Marc van Campenhoudt (Universite' de Bruxelles, Belgium)
> Pierre Zweigenbaum (LIMSI-CNRS & CRIM-INALCO, France)
>
> Organization Committee
> Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles (IRIT, TOulouse, France)
> Anne Condamines (CLLE-ERSS, Toulouse, France)
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090408/286d918e/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:05:44 +0300
> From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <002501c9b853$1c59bfd0$a104810a@homepc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Re: [ontolog-forum] OckhamDuane,
> I number you among the best programmers, but I never written any line of
> code. Nevetheless, for one of your triad i'd not spare a Nobel. But what i
> am missing why John is promoting Okham, who stuck in the referential
> partial view of meaning as "the thing referred, so much contributing to a
> defective extensional semantics. If to advice Richard some historical
> readings on logics and semantics, the best one is Port-Royal Logique,
> where meaning was correctly analyzed as consisting at least of two
> dimensions: intension and extension.
>
> Re. Richard, as i said, he has not only an honest open mind but also real
> intelligence. Nowadays, it is a rare thing to find the mind caring about
> the real world.
>
> Azamat
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Duane Nickull
> To: [ontolog-forum] ; Richard H. McCullough
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
> Dick:
>
> I have been following this conversation from day one and really urge you
> to hear what Chris, Pat and John are saying. These guys have devoted
> their lives to this work and have separated the aspects of "labels" and
> "conceptual work". IMO - you cannot pay all the money in the world for
> better advice. Conceptual work is where ontology work should be done,
> the labeling is where most people mistakenly think they are doing it.
> When you have 3 of the world's leading experts (yes - that is just my
> opinion) on a topic stating that your approach could use re-considering,
> it is worth giving it a thought.
>
> There is no malice in this group and there are a lot of people genuinely
> interested in helping mKR. I think if you can take this in and consider
> the feedback as viable, it might help your efforts substantially. I
> personally came to this group and have learned so much by being willing to
> be open to their perspectives. Please give it a careful thought.
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 4/7/09 6:12 PM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Dick,
>
> I give up.
>
> RHM> This makes mKR closer to Ockham's mental language.
>
> Nothing you write on paper or enter into a computer is
> "close" to a mental language.
>
> If you want to learn something go study. Pat and Chris
> gave up on you long ago.
>
> I am always willing to go an extra mile with a student
> who is willing to think about the issues and do some
> extra reading to fill gaps. But I have no desire to
> try to tutor anybody whose mind is a steel trap.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090408/fb2fc856/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:31:36 -0700
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] context
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <46C4F247308B4DF0BAB691379B4F4E8C@rhm8200>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> RHM> I like mKR. I think in mKR.
>>
>> Good for you. But the partisans of LISP, APL, Prolog,
>> C, Java, and many other programming languages make
>> exactly the same statements about their favorite
>> languages. All those languages were *designed* by people
>> who also had grand theoretical ideas and they designed
>> their languages to be consistent with their theories.
>>
>> But they *defined* those languages at a very low level
>> that could be processed by a very stupid computer that
>> did not understand anything about those theories.
>>
>> If you want your language to be used and implemented
>> on the kinds of computers we have today, I suggest
>> that you do the same.
>>
> mKR is defined at a very low level that can be processed
> by a very stupid computer. mKE is doing that today.
> If you really wanted that definition, you could download
> it from my web site.
> I'll anticipate your objections. No, the definition is not
> publication quality. Yes, it is messy because it bears
> the remnants of 13 years of evolution.
>
> What puzzles me is
> why you question the high level concepts of mKR.
> You are very familiar with Cyc.
> mKR context is very similar to CycL context.
> Enough said?
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:40:57 -0700
> From: Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] context
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <200904080740.57874.rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Wednesday April 8 2009, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> ...
>> Enough said?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Dick McCullough
>
>
> Randall Schulz
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:36:43 -0700
> From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <C602129B.2145%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I think we all seek answers here and I guess it is healthy to question now
> and then. I don't doubt intelligence and Richard has obviously put a lot
> of thought and hard work into mKr. I will be a bystander though from
> now on in this conversation.
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 4/8/09 7:05 AM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Duane,
> I number you among the best programmers, but I never written any line of
> code. Nevetheless, for one of your triad i'd not spare a Nobel. But what i
> am missing why John is promoting Okham, who stuck in the referential
> partial view of meaning as "the thing referred, so much contributing to a
> defective extensional semantics. If to advice Richard some historical
> readings on logics and semantics, the best one is Port-Royal Logique,
> where meaning was correctly analyzed as consisting at least of two
> dimensions: intension and extension.
>
> Re. Richard, as i said, he has not only an honest open mind but also real
> intelligence. Nowadays, it is a rare thing to find the mind caring about
> the real world.
>
> Azamat
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Duane Nickull <mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> To: [ontolog-forum] <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Richard H.
> McCullough <mailto:rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:51 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
> Dick:
>
> I have been following this conversation from day one and really urge you
> to hear what Chris, Pat and John are saying. These guys have devoted
> their lives to this work and have separated the aspects of "labels" and
> "conceptual work". IMO - you cannot pay all the money in the world for
> better advice. Conceptual work is where ontology work should be done,
> the labeling is where most people mistakenly think they are doing it.
> When you have 3 of the world's leading experts (yes - that is just my
> opinion) on a topic stating that your approach could use re-considering,
> it is worth giving it a thought.
>
> There is no malice in this group and there are a lot of people genuinely
> interested in helping mKR. I think if you can take this in and consider
> the feedback as viable, it might help your efforts substantially. I
> personally came to this group and have learned so much by being willing
> to be open to their perspectives. Please give it a careful thought.
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 4/7/09 6:12 PM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Dick,
>
> I give up.
>
> RHM> This makes mKR closer to Ockham's mental language.
>
> Nothing you write on paper or enter into a computer is
> "close" to a mental language.
>
> If you want to learn something go study. Pat and Chris
> gave up on you long ago.
>
> I am always willing to go an extra mile with a student
> who is willing to think about the issues and do some
> extra reading to fill gaps. But I have no desire to
> try to tutor anybody whose mind is a steel trap.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090408/fd981998/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:15:55 +0200
> From: "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] ANN: The GoodRelations Annotator: How any
> business can get onto the Web of Data - today!
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <49DCDBCB.5010909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear all:
>
> We are proud to announce the release of the GoodRelations Annotator, a
> form-based tool that will help any business in the world to create a
> description of its offerings suitable for the Web of Data,
> and that in less than 5 minutes.
>
> The tool is available at
>
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
>
> It creates a straightforward yet complete description of the key aspects
> of a typical business using the GoodRelations vocabulary and current
> Semantic Web standards.
>
> The resulting RDF/XML file can be either directly published on the
> company's Web site or used as a skeleton for developing a more
> fine-grained description with price information etc.
>
> The work on the tool has been funded by the Oesterreichische
> Forschungsfoerderungsgesellschaft GmbH (FFG) and the Austrian
> Bundesministerium fuer Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (BMVIT) under
> the myOntology project in the FIT-IT "Semantic Systems" program
> (contract number 812515).
>
> Please help spread the word.
>
> Best wishes
> Martin Hepp
> http://www.heppnetz.de
> http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/
>
> Tool:
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
>
> GoodRelations Project:
> http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/
>
> Webcast (15 Minutes)
> http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: martin_hepp.vcf
> Type: text/x-vcard
> Size: 308 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090408/9a9ce23d/attachment.vcf
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:03:25 +0100
> From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] semantic distance visual analyser?
> To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@xxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]"
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <c09b00eb0904081403p48d3260bv419d48b2d0024105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> anyone knows of any decent tools such as twitter spectrum,
> (but less of a toy?) it would definitely useful in a lot of analysis
>
> http://www.neoformix.com/Projects/TwitterSpectrum/TwitterSpectrum.html
>
>
> thanks
> PDM
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090408/5be844e9/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:49:54 -0400
> From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"
> To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <02e301c9b911$ae1c1b70$0a545250$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At the Ontology Summit this week we learned about an ongoing effort to
> develop a "merged core ontology" including contributions from SUMO, BFO,
> and
> DOLCE, under the ISO standards procedures (JCT1/SC32). There is a brief
> description of the effort and timeline:
>
>
>
> http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N1801-1850/32N1807-US_contrib_SP_MCO.pdf
>
>
>
> Are any of the participants willing to elaborate for us on the origin of
> this project, and its goals and methods? Is there any opportunity to us
> to
> view the current content? Who is expected to use the resulting product
> for
> what purposes?
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc.
>
> 908-561-3416
>
> cell: 908-565-4053
>
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:06 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
>
> Duane,
>
> I number you among the best programmers, but I never written any line of
> code. Nevetheless, for one of your triad i'd not spare a Nobel. But what i
> am missing why John is promoting Okham, who stuck in the referential
> partial
> view of meaning as "the thing referred, so much contributing to a
> defective
> extensional semantics. If to advice Richard some historical readings on
> logics and semantics, the best one is Port-Royal Logique, where meaning
> was
> correctly analyzed as consisting at least of two dimensions: intension
> and
> extension.
>
>
>
> Re. Richard, as i said, he has not only an honest open mind but also real
> intelligence. Nowadays, it is a rare thing to find the mind caring about
> the
> real world.
>
>
>
> Azamat
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Duane Nickull <mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> To: [ontolog-forum] <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Richard H.
> McCullough <mailto:rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:51 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham
>
>
>
> Dick:
>
> I have been following this conversation from day one and really urge you
> to
> hear what Chris, Pat and John are saying. These guys have devoted their
> lives to this work and have separated the aspects of "labels" and
> "conceptual work". IMO - you cannot pay all the money in the world for
> better advice. Conceptual work is where ontology work should be done,
> the
> labeling is where most people mistakenly think they are doing it. When
> you
> have 3 of the world's leading experts (yes - that is just my opinion) on a
> topic stating that your approach could use re-considering, it is worth
> giving it a thought.
>
> There is no malice in this group and there are a lot of people genuinely
> interested in helping mKR. I think if you can take this in and consider
> the
> feedback as viable, it might help your efforts substantially. I
> personally
> came to this group and have learned so much by being willing to be open to
> their perspectives. Please give it a careful thought.
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 4/7/09 6:12 PM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dick,
>
> I give up.
>
> RHM> This makes mKR closer to Ockham's mental language.
>
> Nothing you write on paper or enter into a computer is
> "close" to a mental language.
>
> If you want to learn something go study. Pat and Chris
> gave up on you long ago.
>
> I am always willing to go an extra mile with a student
> who is willing to think about the issues and do some
> extra reading to fill gaps. But I have no desire to
> try to tutor anybody whose mind is a steel trap.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20090409/8e40779e/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> End of ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 76, Issue 7
> ******************************************** (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|