Folks, is it really that hard to take a few extra seconds to eliminate hundreds
of lines of largely useless and undeniably ugly cruft from your posts? (Answer:
Unless you are doing your mail with a line editor, it isn't.) (01)
I leave Azamat's egregious violation of this rule of proper netiquette below
for illustrative purposes only, not intending specifically to single him out,
as others are equally guilty of said socio-aesthetic crime. (02)
Chris Menzel (03)
On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:02 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote: (04)
> Rich,
> I believe focusing on "self-interest", as a concern for your own interest,
> advantage or well-being, is not ontologically productive, and its more the
> subject of psychology, ethics, or other special domains. Its scope is better
> to be widened, running from individual interests to national interests. Then
> the issue becomes ontological or inclusive, involving such things as social
> ontology, social reality, security, prosperity, values, etc. For instance,
> the US National Security Strategy, called Obama's Manifesto for a New World
> Order, is largely about "advancing our interests".
> There appear then many critical questions, how to pursue your national
> interests without harming others national interests, or how to merge
> individual self-interests and national interest, or how to combine national
> interests as the shared, common interests of the global community of
> countries, peoples, and nations.
> Azamat
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:31 PM
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
>
>
>> Dear Self Interested Ontologists,
>>
>> I discovered a book written in 1948 that explains
>> why the Keynesian theories don't work - he
>> describes what he calls the "broken window
>> fallacy" here:
>>
>> http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-
>> lesson/
>>
>> I hope that helps stimulate more discussion of the
>> role of self interest in AI and in ontology
>> developments. Moy conclusion is that a true AI
>> system will have to EVOLVE effectiveness as an
>> ontology of communication among a plurality of
>> self interested observers.
>>
>> -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 doug foxvog
>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 8:24 AM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal
>> Ontology, Semantic Web and Smart Applications
>>
>> On Fri, November 4, 2011 14:02, Cory Casanave
>> said:
>>> The other strong use-case for reification,
>> besides n-ary, is to support
>>> relations as first-class elements that can also
>> be the subject of other
>>> relations. I have found this essential to
>> represent the concepts of a
>>> domain accurately - "marriage" is such a
>> relation.
>>
>> In ontological terms, Marriage is a temporal
>> situation.
>> "isCurrentlyMarriedTo" is a relation -- in this
>> case a binary relation.
>> Beginning ontologists often start creating binary
>> and multiple arity
>> relations to represent sets of columns in a
>> database, not stopping to
>> consider what the underlying classes of things are
>> and realizing that
>> many more relations could apply to those classes
>> of things in various
>> circumstances. Events and situations are common
>> categories of things
>> that are often so modeled.
>>
>> Conceptually higher-arity relations are relations
>> among multiple things
>> that are more than the sum of their parts, e.g.
>> (between X Y Z) and
>> (betweenOnPath Y X Z P1).
>>
>>> The other use-case for
>>> relations of relations to add metadata about the
>> assertion, including the
>>> authority and time for which the relation is
>> valid.
>>
>> This is a useful case for reifying assertions.
>>
>> The concept of "relations of relations" covers
>> relations which can
>> be mapped into rules relating assertions on
>> statements using one
>> relation to assertions on statements using the
>> other relation. E.g.,
>> * subRelations
>> (subRelations parentOf relativeOf)
>> * transitiveClosure
>> (transitiveClosure parentOf ancestorOf)
>> * disjointRelations
>> (disjointRelations youngerThan ancestorOf)
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>>> The problem with this
>>> in RDF/OWL properties is that the same concept
>> may need, at times, to be a
>>> reified relation but in simpler cases a single
>> property will do. So a
>>> general representation seems to always need to
>> use reification. On the
>>> down-side reification (in RDF/OWL) makes queries
>> much more complex and it
>>> removed the relations from any "normal"
>> inference as they are not asserted
>>> in the same way.
>>>
>>> For these reasons I have concluded that the
>> simpler approach is for all
>>> relations to be "first class" so that these
>> artificial differences don't
>>> exist. Once that simplification is made the
>> logic & infrastructure can
>>> support all relations consistently and
>> efficiently.
>>>
>>> -Cory
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
>>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 12:32 PM
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal
>> Ontology, Semantic Web
>>> and Smart Applications
>>>
>>> The practice of reifying relations in binary
>> models goes back at least to
>>> Peter Chen and the original Entity-Relationship
>> models.
>>>
>>> That is, you make the relation itself a
>> 'class'/'entity', and then it has
>>> binary relationships to each of its arguments.
>> Each of those binary
>>> relationships is a term for the 'role' -- the
>> 'argument name' if you will,
>>> or in the least informative of cases, just the
>> position number.
>>>
>>> This is precisely the recommended best practice
>> for representing n-ary
>>> relationships in OWL: the relation becomes a
>> 'class', and each of the
>>> argument slots becomes an objectProperty (or
>> datatypeProperty) named for
>>> the role. The domain of the argument property
>> is the relation class and
>>> the range of the argument property is the range
>> of the argument. One can
>>> create the inverse of the role property where it
>> is useful, i.e., where
>>> one needs to navigate the model from one
>> argument of the relation to
>>> another.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem the RDF folk and the OWL folk have
>> is the absence of a way to
>>> declare that the 'class' term represents an
>> n-ary relation. That is the
>>> one semantic addition that is created by the UML
>> AssociationClass.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the other rules for handling
>> association classes in UML
>>> v1 made the structure hard to use, and many UML
>> best practice documents
>>> forbid its use. The problem for slavishly
>> object-oriented models is
>>> whether there is a difference between the role
>> links and the attributes of
>>> the would-be class, and whether a class whose
>> instances play one of the
>>> roles has an attribute that refers directly to
>> another role player, and of
>>> course, what the resulting C++, C# and Java
>> implementations will look
>>> like. An alternative used by database modelers
>> in UML v2 is to create a
>>> <n-ary relation> stereotype for classes
>> representing reified relations and
>>> a <role> stereotype for the arguments. The
>> advantage of this approach is
>>> that it allows the modeler to mark up the model
>> to characterize
>>> participation multiplicities correctly, and to
>> create the useful inverses.
>>> And for database models, it distinguishes the
>> functional arguments (the
>>> role players and their keys) from the dependent
>> variables (the other
>>> attributes and associations) in the 3rd normal
>> form re
>>> lation.
>>>
>>> All of this only says that the practice of
>> reification of relations is
>>> common, but has evolved differently for
>> different implementation
>>> mechanisms and for different semantic concerns.
>> And make no mistake:
>>> Tableaux reasoning is an implementation
>> mechanism, and more than half of
>>> the RDF folk are more worried about managing
>> triple stores than
>>> manipulating their semantics.
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>> P.S. I now await John Sowa's further
>> elaboration/correction on the
>>> history of reification. :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Edward J. Barkmeyer
>> Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
>>> National Institute of Standards & Technology
>>> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
>>> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel:
>> +1 301-975-3528
>>> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel:
>> +1 240-672-5800
>>>
>>> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect
>> consensus of NIST,
>>> and have not been reviewed by any Government
>> authority."
>>>
>>>
>>> David Price wrote:
>>>> WRT RDF doesn't it simply boil down to being
>> based on graphs which,
>>>> quoting from Wikipedia, are "mathematical
>> structures used to model
>>>> pairwise relations between objects from a
>> certain collection". So, I'm
>>>> confused by comments like "N-ary relations work
>> great in a graph model."
>>>> which seems completely at odds with the fact
>> that graph relations are
>>>> pairwise.
>>>>
>>>> UML has N-ary associations and
>> AssociationClass, so there's at least one
>>>> standard from which the semantics community
>> might steal an idea or two.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 11/4/2011 2:57 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I believe this fundamental issue more belong
>> to the Ontolog Forum.
>>>>> Risk to start the n-relations thread...
>>>>>
>>>>> Azamat
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "David Booth"<david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> To: "glenn mcdonald"<glenn@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc:
>> "AzamatAbdoullaev"<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;<semanti
>> c-web@xxxxxx>;
>>>>> "Frank Manola"<fmanola@xxxxxxx>; "Sampo
>> Syreeni"<decoy@xxxxxx>;
>>>>> <alexandre.riazanov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 3:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Standard representations for n-ary
>> relations [was: Re:
>>>>> relational
>>>>> data as a bona fide member of the SM]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus RDF doesn't have any *standard* way to
>> tag or represent n-ary
>>>>>> relations -- we have taken a do-it-yourself
>> attitude[1] -- and thus
>>>>>> tools cannot predictably recognize n-ary
>> relations as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think this is something that
>> would be good to address,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> there are several simple ways it could be
>> done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 08:49 -0400, glenn
>> mcdonald wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N-ary relations work great in a graph model.
>> The only reason they
>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>> awkward in the Semantic Web world, in my
>> opinion, is that RDF leads
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> to looking at a graph *decomposition*
>> instead of an actual assembled
>>>>>>> graph. This effect cascades onto SPARQL and
>> OWL, and thus we end up
>>>>>>> with a great forest we're reduced to looking
>> at, and talking about,
>>>>>>> one twig at a time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> glenn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2011,
>> AzamatAbdoullaev<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a big issue of Relational Ontology,
>> or "N-Relational Ontology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of Things", as discussed 5 years ago:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2
>> 006Apr/0047.html.
>>>>>>>> And it is not strange that a consistent
>> formal account of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N-Relations has been long missing. Relations
>> are so ubiquitious and
>>>>>>> omnipresent that most people take them for
>> granted. In a general
>>>>>>> sense, everything is related to everything.
>> We are related to the
>>>>>>> world around us, to other people, to our
>> country, to our family and
>>>>>>> children and to ourselves. There are
>> ontological, logical, natural,
>>>>>>> physical, mechanical, biological,
>> psychological,
>>>>>>> emotional, technological, social, cultural,
>> moral, sexual, aesthetic,
>>>>>>> and semiotic relations, to name a few. For
>> most people, there is no
>>>>>>> particular problem with most of these
>> relations, may be, except
>>>>>>> ontological and semiotic (semantic,
>> syntactic and pragmatic)
>>>>>>> relations. However, theorists have been
>> perpetually puzzled over
>>>>>>> relations, and they have tried to understand
>> them theoretically and
>>>>>>> systematically, but consistent,
>> machine-readable models of relations
>>>>>>> have proved extraordinarily difficult to
>> construct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "What Organizes the World: N-Relational
>> Entities":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/reality-universa
>> l-ontology-knowledge-systems/28313
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is hardly questionable, to be
>> implemented, the semantic web
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> indeed requires a unified formal ontology of
>> relations: UFOR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Frank Manola
>>>>>>>> To: Alexandre Riazanov
>>>>>>>> Cc: Semantic Web List
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:23 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: relational data as a bona fide
>> member of the SM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Alexandre
>> Riazanov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Frank
>> Manola<fmanola@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Alexandre
>> Riazanov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been asking this sort of questions
>> for a while and the only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> decent answer I know is that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Description Logics only work with unary and
>> binary predicates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (classes and properties),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> although I believe RDF was initially
>> developed independently from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the DL and OWL work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RIF and RuleML seem to be going in the
>> relational direction (see
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> also the earlier work
>>>>>>>
>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
>> 10.1.1.48.7623&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>>>>>>> by Harold Boley), but it is difficult to
>> break the monopoly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of RDF+OWL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From my point of view, a major reason for
>> focusing on unary and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> binary predicates (the logical forms that
>> underlie RDF triples) is
>>>>>>> that it's easier to deal with the problems
>> of integrating
>>>>>>> heterogeneous data (a key issue in the
>> semantic web) if the data is
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> (or is mapped to being in) that form, as
>> opposed to data in arbitrary
>>>>>>> arity relations (for example, with n-aries
>> you need a schema to
>>>>>>> interpret any tuples you encounter "in the
>> wild", otherwise you don't
>>>>>>> know what the "columns" mean). If you go
>> back to the period before
>>>>>>> the "monopoly of RDF+OWL" :-) and look at
>> the work on integrating
>>>>>>> heterogeneous relational databases, one of
>> the major approaches to
>>>>>>> developing the mappings between the various
>> relational schemas was by
>>>>>>> interpreting the various local schemas in
>> terms of unary and binary
>>>>>>> relations for just this reason (compound
>> keys had to be dealt with in
>>>>>>> this way too, because the same combinations
>> of columns didn't
>>>>>>> necessarily constitute the keys in otherwise
>> corresponding relations
>>>>>>> in the different local schemas). Mind you,
>> if you're NOT worried
>>>>>>> about integrating heterogeneous data, RDF
>> introduces extra pain of
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> own (figuring out all those identifiers, for
>> one thing), but if you
>>>>>>> ARE worried about integrating heterogenous
>> data, I think you want
>>>>>>> those identifiers around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't quite understand your argument.
>> Indeed, interoperability is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the target. Syntactic interoperability is
>> not a problem as long as
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> use the same or convertible syntaxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic interoperability requires shared
>> understanding of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> identifiers being used, which has nothing to
>> do with arity.
>>>>>>> Reinterpreting legacy relational schemas is
>> a related, but separate
>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Binary predicates are often handy to
>> represent attributes, but it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> does not mean n-ary predicates cannot be
>> helpful in the same
>>>>>>> (although
>>>>>>> I could not recall a real example) and other
>> KR tasks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me try again, then (although I can't
>> guarantee I'll be any more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understandable this time!). The original
>> question (I thought) was
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> there weren't relational approaches applied
>> in Semantic-Web-like
>>>>>>> contexts (where, as you say,
>> interoperability is the target). I
>>>>>>> cited
>>>>>>> the integration of heterogeneous relational
>> databases to argue that,
>>>>>>> in this case, where relations were already
>> being used by all parties,
>>>>>>> and interoperability was the target, those
>> doing the integration
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>> that using unaries and binaries helped (I
>> agree that shared
>>>>>>> understanding of the identifiers is
>> necessarily for semantic
>>>>>>> interoperability, but in RDF+OWL, at least
>> the identifiers are
>>>>>>> *there*; those putting the data on the Web
>> had to create them).
>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>> that RDF is doing is starting from the
>> unaries and binaries. This is
>>>>>>> not an argument that n-ary relations aren't
>> helpful in data modeling.
>>>>>>> Nor is it an argument that you can't do
>> semantic integration using
>>>>>>> n-ary relations. I simply think it's
>> *easier* to do that integration
>>>>>>> with the RDF approach, and I cited an
>> historical example as evidence
>>>>>>> that others have found that as well. Now,
>> they/we may have simply
>>>>>>> missed the boat, and if so, someone
>> (possibly you) will have to come
>>>>>>> along and show us a better way (I'm
>> serious). There have certainly
>>>>>>> been attempts to provide more general KRs
>> (allowing n-ary predicates)
>>>>>>> for data/knowledge exchange
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>>>>>> http://dbooth.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the
>> author and do not
>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>> reflect those of his employer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> _______________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Managing Director and Consultant
>>>> TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No.
>> 05614307
>>>> UK +44 7788 561308
>>>> US +1 336-283-0606
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> _______________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ==================================================
>> ===========
>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>>
>> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own
>> nation. The great
>> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to
>> stop it must be ours."
>> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>> ==================================================
>> ===========
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> _______________
>> 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-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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|