Dear Pat, (01)
You're welcome to do so, but the point here isn't
political activism, as you seem to have concluded,
but to explore all aspects of self interest.
Political self interest is a very important area
to study for this purpose. I frankly don't
particularly care what your politics are, just
whether you can objectively consider the self
interests of all the players involved. And no, I
am not a follower of Ayn Rand, though she was the
first to document the extreme view of self
interest in modern times (02)
Those political interests are the ones which are
most measurable and most observable, with the most
data offered from the point of view of subjective
observers of detectable self interest, therefore
the most open to study. Knowing the self interest
of the observer is very important in knowing how
that observer construes facts and organizes them
into rules. (03)
If you have an alternative area to focus on, you
can do that instead, but we have discussed many
different kinds of self interest here, including
politically evident self interest. Therefore the
activity of defining an ontology of self interest
without SOME degree of political focus would be
neglectful in the extreme. (04)
That is the example interaction area where self
interest is most fully exposed for analysis and
most available data comes from regarding self
interest. So if you find it outside your own
interest, you are welcome to block my emails as
much as you wish. (05)
Thanks for your prior inputs though; some of them
were useful. (06)
-Rich (07)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Pat Hayes
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Rich Cooper
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
Ontology: Ontology ofSocialReality (09)
Dear Rich (010)
As I strongly suspected, and as you email here
makes abundantly clear, this is a political effort
rather than a technical one. I rather thought I
could smell Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and other
far-right (and somewhat discredited) thinkers in
your ideas. (011)
So this is just to let you know I am adding you to
my auto-trash filter, which is why you wont get
any further emails from me. Good luck. (012)
Pat (013)
------ (014)
On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Rich Cooper wrote: (015)
> Dear Azamat,
>
> I like your version of this, but I would use the
word "interaction" instead of "conversation";
interactions between individuals should be the
primary focus of the ontology, with less emphasis
on the aggregation of people into various kinds of
groups. Grouping can come later, as can
charitable functions. First lets construct the
simplest model possible for representing self
interest of interactions.
>
> As Milton Friedman showed fifty years ago, no
one person can make even something as simple as a
pencil, which has wood from a forest log, said
wood shaped by a factory into the hexagonal or
cylindrical shape needed, and then filled with
lead, topped with a rubber eraser, and held in
place by a metal clasp.
>
> The social reality of that pencil depends on
many individuals, each doing a small part of the
tasks needed to create the pencils, then
distribute them to geographically convenient
locations, ensure that they are sold, paid for,
and the investments of each party returned to fund
development of more pencils plus created wealth.
If no wealth is created in an activity, and if
this continues for a long enough period, then that
activity eventually ceases to function because it
runs out of invested wealth from prior activities,
invested by individuals. At least, it should, but
government groups are able to take funding from
the public commons and continue the activity by
bleeding wealth from the creators of the pencils. (016)
>
> Friedman pointed out that there is no central
planner, no government regulation, no outsiders
needed to construct and socially realize that
pencil in the hands of consumers. The flow of
wealth and labor is what makes the pencil
available to consumers. Those involved in the
flow of wealth and labor enjoy profits of their
own in performing the various activities.
>
> Central planning and government controls are
only useful in preventing harmful side effects,
such as destruction of forests that belong to
others (the public for example), noxious chemicals
that may be used in the process and then disposed
of into the public commons with damaging effects,
financial crimes related to the individuals
involved in production and distribution, robbery
and theft related to production distribution and
sale methods, or other ways in which the pencils
are not smoothly made available to individuals in
the public in the linear models of activities by
individuals.
>
> Note that each individual involved in the pencil
related activities has his own self interest
motivating him to perform his activity requiring
labor and invested wealth. The signal (a la
biosemiotics) that ties the process together is
price. Individuals in each activity react to the
price they can get for their activity, the cost
they experience in performing their activity, and
the created wealth they enjoy as a result of those
activities, are what keep the whole process
synchronized and working.
>
> Use Case 1 - the biosemiotics case - has the
structure to model this kind of activity.
Expanding Use Case 1 through instances of Use Case
2 (the nonterminal aggregation of terminal Use
Case 1 instances and other nonterminal Use Case 2
instances) can construct the ontology, IMHO.
>
> How can these factors be represented in an
ontology? Activities can be represented in the
usual industrial engineering IDEF0 model. Cost,
price, investment, labor and margin can be
represented as heuristics describing these meta
level measures, and the agents involved can be
represented as controls or mechanisms, as the
IDEF0 terminology names these classes.
>
> Complications arise when individuals bind
together into groups. They form pluralities of
companies to log, machine, fill, cap, package,
distribute, market and sell the pencils. Each of
these activities requires some cooperation among
the individuals in each of the various groups.
Transportation of ICOMs to activity sites,
movement of ICOMs among the activities, design and
interpretation of controls, allocation, scheduling
and depreciation of mechanisms, all require
coordination among individuals. Adam Smith
addressed the individual models as self
organizing.
>
> Groups can scale the efforts of individuals, but
there is an inherent loss of efficiency in such
scaling. Sometimes that loss is taken out of the
least powerful indiviudals' opportunities for
compensation, and sometimes it is taken as
financial loss from the investors who risk their
stored wealth. Any individual who feels that her
expenditures are not justified by her wealth
creation results should be freely able to move to
another group, or to practice on her own.
>
> Given a public value hypothesized by one
individual, and given the cost of scale factors
for the related ICOMs and activities, and given
the cost of implementing the scaling, it seems to
me that the ideal form of group is one which acts
in exactly the same manner as the other groups;
the hypothesized public value is only realized at
some profit to the group which performs the
scaling, whether that group be a company organized
for commercial purposes or a government organized
to realize that hypothesized public value.
>
> With this line of reasoning, it seems to me that
all such activities should be self funding.
Hypothesized value should be agreed to by any
individual who is involved the activity on a self
interest basis.
>
> That is, the hypothesized public value should be
realized at a profit to the public. The said
profit should be measured and made available to
those who police all activities, not just the
companies; government entities should also be
policed to ensure that there is no cheating, that
there is financial value to the public as agreed
to by the public, and that the use of the cost
price and profit metrics are related to the
government entities just as they are to the
companies organized for commercial activities.
The only difference should be in the way
hypothesized value and allocated funding is agreed
to by individual of the public who specifically
benefit, or who cause the public wealth to be
depreciated by their own activities.
>
> For this reason, I believe the ontology should
model the costs of governing activities, the
public price of not governing, the profits
accruing to the public, as agreed by individuals
of the public due to the governing activities, and
the funding of the governing activities in the
same way that individuals and their activities
should be modeled in producing pencils. Not
everyone uses pencils and therefore not everyone
should be forced at gunpoint to fund them, consume
their products and services, or otherwise
participate in the governing activities in any way
different from the pencil activities. Friedman
pointed out how choice, denied by governing
activities but provided by commercial activities,
leaves out the checks and balances that make the
wealth creation system work.
>
> Complications arise when the governing
activities are funded from the public at large
through taxes, fees, losses, borrowing, or money
supply extensions. There are only individuals who
benefit from the activities; there is no
individual public at large - benefits are not
evenly distributed nor evenly costed. So that
leaves the beneficiaries, using Doug's term, as
special interest groups (SIGs).
>
> The SIGs that benefit from each activity are not
the same as the SIGs that benefit from the
products and services resulting from those
activities. The individuals in those SIGs should
be treated in the same way, with the same
regulations, as individuals are. That is, there
should be no bribery (whether funded from
lobbyists or campaign contributors), no conflicts
of interest (by individuals engaged in the
activities or benefitting from the products and
services), no cheating or other adverse tactics
and strategies on the part of those who benefit at
the expense of those who don't.
>
> One problem with that approach is that it leaves
out those who simply cannot take care of
themselves without help. While aware of that
issue, I would prefer to hold off addressing it
until we can solve the simpler problem of modeling
self interest of those who can take care of
themselves. Perhaps when that model is well
developed, we can begin refining it help those who
can't help themselves, but are not cheating in any
real sense of that word. That part should be
addressed in the second phase so that we can focus
on the direct beneficiaries of the various
activities.
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful suggestion.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:56 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
Ontology: Ontology of SocialReality
>
> I inclined to view the "self-interest" as a
piece of the Ontology of Social Reality, which
encompasses such social interactions as
conversation, speech and communication.
> As far as conversation is about exchange of
ideas, views, emotions, and information between
people, the conversants can lead conversation for
its own sake, for religious, commercial or
political ends.
> Conversation is not always involves negative
emotions or topic, as it's pressed in the
reference below. There are chats, nothings,
gossips, table talks, banters, talkings, small
talks, crossfires, or exchanges. Most conversation
is spontaneous, without subjects and goals.
> But an ordered meaningful conversation, as
institutional or functional conservation, has its
art, topic, objectives and strategy, as well as
the self-interest of the speakers.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Cooper
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
Ontology
>
> Dear SIO-interested posters,
>
> I found this posting on the ISRE list, which
describes how certain emotions are tied to self
interest in a conversation. I think this could
shed some light on Doug's view of "interest" in a
way that fits the SIO:
>
> If there is a topic, it means there is a
conversation. The conversation is with another
person, with whom one is in some kind of
relationship. One or the other party in the
conversation will feel anger if the tenor of the
conversation implies that there is something
defective or unworthy or wrong or culpable or
immoral or stupid or the like about that person.
>
> RC:> Note how this addresses the PERSON not the
topic of conversation, and it addresses the manner
of communication instead of the underlying
concepts.
>
> Religion and politics are topics that frequently
instigate anger since opposing opinion often
implies defect, unworthiness, wrong-headedness,
culpability, immorality, stupidity, etc. Such
imputations of unworthiness lead to a sense of
deprivation of one's right to attention, respect,
consideration and the like from the other party.
The basic premise here is that all there is the
relationship between the parties and that the
relationship between the parties is usefully and
importantly understood to be based in large part
on the degree of attention, respect,
consideration, etc. that the parties provide each
other.
>
> Conversation about any topic that leads to a
sense of loss of these benefits from the other
party can thus engender anger. Anger is an
evolutionarily programmed response to this kind of
loss. The emotion creates an action-readiness to
engage in acts that punish the other party so that
he/she does not again act to deprive the angered
person of relational benefits (attention, respect,
etc.).
>
> For elaboration of these ideas, see:
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, "Power and Status and the
Power-Status Theory of Emotions," in Turner and
Stets, Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions
(2006).
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, Status, Power and Ritual
Interaction. Ashgate (2011).
>
> RC:>These ideas should be reflected somehow in
Doug's initial ontology, though so far we have no
concept about distinguishing among the selves
involved in the conversation.
>
> HTH,
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:42 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of
Natural Languages
>
> Let me propose that it is SUBJECTIVITY i.e. a
>
> proper understanding of self interest, that I
>
> think is missing.
>
> We have been seduced by the 'unreasonable
success
>
> of mathematics' in solving problems in a
>
> supposedly objective world, as Somebody said.
We
>
> need to overcome our self satisfaction at how
well
>
> math has worked and look in a different
direction.
>
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
>
> Behalf Of Rich Cooper
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:30 PM
>
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of
Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the links, but that isn't what I am
>
> interested in; I'm more focused on WHY Cyc (and
>
> other approaches to developing massive knowledge
>
> bases) is thought by so many to have failed,
e.g.,
>
> Genesereth for example.
>
> Before the Cyc project started, the common view
>
> given full imprimaturitan status in the research
>
> community was that it was KNOWLEDGE that was
>
> lacking for full AI, and only THAT was keeping
AI
>
> from universal suffrage.
>
> I am looking for opinions by people who might
know
>
> as to WHY that assumption was clearly so wrong.
>
> Knowledge is NOT enough, and that has been
clearly
>
> demonstrated by Cyc's lack of demonstrated value
>
> in universality of intelligence.
>
> Small, highly focused projects, such as the
blocks
>
> world and its successful linguistic manipulation
>
> as per Terry Winograd's (admitted) kluge, and
the
>
> surprisingly good results from very simple (also
>
> kludged) chatbots such as Parry, and the
>
> Somebody's Prize demonstrating lack of
scalability
>
> of said chatbots, shows SOMETHING. But what
KIND
>
> of something?
>
> More study of Cyc seems to belong to the same
>
> viewpoint as theocratic studies of angel
densities
>
> and pinheads, the viscosity of ether, and
mappings
>
> of magnetic fields in thousands of points.
>
> Instead, the Einsteinian approach of novel -
dare
>
> I say subjective -interpretations (in his case,
of
>
> the Michelson-Morley results) seems to be what
is
>
> most clearly lacking at this point in time.
>
> Why DON'T huge hunks of deduced, induced,
abduced
>
> and reduced knowledge suffice? What is still
>
> lacking? Why don't gobs of special purpose
>
> functionality, coupled with gobs of knowledge,
do
>
> the trick?
>
> Why DO simple approaches work so well at small
>
> scales?
>
> Why DON't simple approaches scale well?
>
> Why DOESN't a simple chatbot with Cyc on its
back
>
> suffice to convince observers in a Turing test?
>
> In the fifties or so, game theory was
developing.
>
> Turing came up with a biological explanation of
>
> what would be called the hox genes to form
complex
>
> biological strata. Lately, we have learned that
>
> there are only some 20,000 genes which are
>
> adequate for making a human bean, but that
leaves
>
> out a LOT of so called JUNK DNA, meaning genetic
>
> structures we still don't have a clue about.
>
> Those are the kinds of new ideas that need to be
>
> reduced to practice. And that is why the patent
>
> form, with one advance teaching AGAINST prior
art,
>
> seems interesting to me as a model of how to
take
>
> the next steps.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
>
> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:41 AM
>
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of
Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Rich,
>
> Some comments:
>
> JFS
>
> >> About a dozen years ago, I was talking with
>
> Mike Genesereth,
>
> >> who said "Lenat is probably the only one who
>
> doesn't know that
>
> >> Cyc has failed."
>
> RC
>
> > That is the kind of thinking that all of us
show
>
> in one form or
>
> > another. We seem stuck in our structured ways
>
> after the first four
>
> > decades or six, unable to overthrow the past
>
> beliefs and institute
>
> > new untried ones.
>
> Genesereth has been one of the strongest
>
> proponents of classical
>
> logic-based AI. He has been teaching at
Stanford
>
> for years in
>
> close collaboration with the same people
>
> (McCarthy, Feigenbaum,
>
> Fikes, etc.) as Lenat. Any success stories from
>
> Cyc would have
>
> provided more attention (and funding) for all
>
> kinds of projects
>
> that used logic-based AI. But Mike G. was being
>
> realistic. I
>
> would qualify his comment, but I certainly
>
> couldn't refute it.
>
> In my 1984 book, I tried to take a balanced view
>
> of the strengths
>
> and limitations of logic-based systems. My view
>
> then (and with
>
> more input since then) has been that logic-based
>
> systems are
>
> important, especially for applications to comp.
>
> sci., but that
>
> NLP systems must include logic-based approaches
as
>
> a proper subset:
>
> 1. Large numbers of applications in computer
>
> systems, database
>
> systems, programming systems, and
>
> hardware/software design,
>
> require a foundation in formal logic.
>
> 2. Natural languages can be used in very
precise
>
> ways (for
>
> example, along the lines of controlled
NLs),
>
> but they
>
> can also be used in very scruffy, very
>
> informal ways.
>
> 3. The overwhelming volume of NL speech and
>
> documents use
>
> highly informal, often ungrammatical, and
>
> "innovative"
>
> language. (I'm using "innovative" as a
>
> neutral term
>
> for what many people would call
"incorrect".)
>
> 3. I also agree with the comment by Alan
Perlis
>
> that you
>
> can't translate informal language to formal
>
> language by
>
> any formal algorithm.
>
> 4. I believe that you can interpret highly
>
> informal language
>
> by computer, but that you need to use huge
>
> amounts of
>
> background knowledge (i.e., extralinguistic
>
> information)
>
> to do so.
>
> 5. Point #4 is acknowledged by classical
>
> logic-based AI projects
>
> such as Cyc. But they assume that you need
a
>
> long gestation
>
> period that depends on hand-coded logical
>
> representations
>
> (e.g., formal ontologies and knowledge
bases).
>
> 6. The scruffies, such as Roger Schank,
disputed
>
> that claim
>
> from the early days (1960s). But they
didn't
>
> have the
>
> facilities for acquiring, storing, and
using
>
> such large
>
> volumes of information.
>
> 7. The hardware today is more than adequate to
>
> store and
>
> process the huge volumes of information
>
> needed to support
>
> point #6. One example is the IBM Watson
>
> project, but
>
> there are other projects that have achieved
>
> comparable
>
> success with more modest hardware
resources.
>
> The
>
> VivoMind applications I summarized are
among
>
> them.
>
> > I don't see much of anything discussed about
Cyc
>
> past the
>
> > precursors I mentioned anywhere in the public
>
> literature;
>
> > I'm not referring to tutorials about Cyc, but
>
> about analyses.
>
> For the research publications, see
>
> http://cyc.com/cyc/technology/pubs
>
> For free downloads of the ontology and
supporting
>
> software:
>
> http://opencyc.org/
>
> I believe that there are many useful
applications
>
> of Cyc and OpenCyc,
>
> but I also believe that a different architecture
>
> is necessary to
>
> achieve something that could be called natural
>
> language understanding.
>
> That is what I have been discussing in talks,
>
> publications, and emails.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
>
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (017)
--------------------------------------------------
----------
IHMC (850)434
8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office
Pensacola (850)202 4440
fax
FL 32502 (850)291
0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (018)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|