----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology (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, if you mean this passage, "the US National Security Strategy ...is
largely about "advancing our interests", then you shouldn't blame me; for i
just cited the title of the document, the chapter "Advancing Our Interests"
makes its key part (see as attached). (03)
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:02 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
USnational_security_strategy.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|