----- Original Message -----
From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal Ontology, Semantic Web and
Smart Applications (01)
> Azamat,
> Re: At the level of language, natural or artificial, the {ed. Marriage}
> term/concept could be virtually expressed in infinite ways. But still,
> it's a binary relation.
>
> Binary relation between what?
AA: For the relationship of marriage, its men and women, legally ordered
pairs, be it a polygamy or monogamy.
Generally, the elements of relationships may be as different as types of
entities, substances, states, changes, or relations themselves. With some
qualifications, i like A. Morgan's definition of binary relations: "When
two objects, qualities, classes, or attributes, viewed together by the mind,
are seen under some connexion, that connexion is called a relation." It'd be
just perfect if to remove "viewed together by the mind"... When an n-ary
relations, or n-dimensional, or n-placed, it could be abstracted as "When a
number of objects, qualities, classes, or attributes...are seen under some
connexion, that connexion is called an n-ary relation." . (02)
And, can we make statements about that binary relation (i.e. when it was
true)? (03)
AA: The truth or falsity of the statement depends on the fact of existence
or nonexistence of the reified relationship type referred to.
Mine meaning was a bit different: "marriage is just a binary relation, not
3-dimensional or 4-dimensional, regardless of being an open marriage,
polygamy, or bigamy, its always a couple, ordered or disordered. (04)
Azamat (05)
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> AzamatAbdoullaev
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 2:38 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal Ontology, Semantic Web
> and Smart Applications
>
> "Expressing the verb phrase "x isMarriedTo y" or "x hasSpouse y" or
> "Marriage(x,y) are saying the SAME THING, it is the same fact expressed in
> a different way - in some cases as relations and some cases reified. I
> submit that to understand how the different ways we express information
> are related we have to understand concepts at this level."
>
> That's the job ontology to identify the nature of concepts or the real
> semanics of terms, i.e., what real things they signify, denote and
> connote; or mean, represent and sense. Indeed, "marriage" denotes a
> relationship, a spousal relationship, as its primary meaning, its barest
> definition, with all its possible types: as common-law marriage, marriage
> of convenience, plygamy. But it connotes all other things associated with
> it, married couple, man and wife, wedding or marriage ceremony, and many
> other associations. At the level of language, natural or artificial, the
> term/concept could be virtually expressed in infinite ways. But still,
> it's a binary relation.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal Ontology, Semantic Web
> and Smart Applications
>
>
>> Doug,
>> Whenever I see properties with complex verb phrases like "
>> isCurrentlyMarriedTo ", this is a red flag that indicates that
>> multiple concepts are being conflated. Lets say this was expressing X
>> isCurrentlyMarriedTo Y. There are multiple possible facts and
>> representations here:
>> * X is married
>> * Y is married
>> * The spouse of X is Y
>> * X hasSpouse Y
>> * X is married to Y
>> * The above situation currently exists
>> * The spouse of Y is X
>> * There is a Marriage, in which X and Y are spouses
>> * M exists now.
>> * X hasSpouse Y
>> * Y hasSpouse X
>>
>> Perhaps X is the male in a traditional marriage.
>>
>> * X isHusbandOf Y
>> * Y isWifeOf X
>>
>> Etc, Etc.
>>
>> Notice how every one of the above statements can imply the existence
>> of a marriage in which X and Y are playing the role Spouse and in some
>> cases Wife and Husband (kinds of spouses with additional constraints).
>>
>> The problem with this is that these made-up verb phrases are black
>> boxes that become difficult to relate to the other made-up verb
>> phrases. I suggest we have to stop inventing new "words" and make
>> more of the concepts we have. We should also be able to relate very
>> common concepts like "currently" to anything that may have a time
>> dimension and not imbed such concepts in these made- up phrases. (I
>> have no problem with making real composite concepts that are
>> compositions, but we should then understand their parts). To do this
>> we much be able to use the "relations" (of any granularity) as subjects
>> of such relations.
>>
>> If there is a proper representation of the terms and concepts of a
>> complex concept like marriage these can be properly related.
>> "Married", "Spouse", "Husband", "Wife", etc. are all only meaningful
>> within the context of marriage. Expressing the verb phrase "x
>> isMarriedTo y" or "x hasSpouse y"
>> or "Marriage(x,y) are saying the SAME THING, it is the same fact
>> expressed in a different way - in some cases as relations and some
>> cases reified. I submit that to understand how the different ways we
>> express information are related we have to understand concepts at this
>> level.
>>
>> -Cory
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug
>> foxvog
>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 11:24 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>;<semantic-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/2006Apr/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-universal-ontology-know
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>> edge-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&;
>>>>>>> r ep=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-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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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-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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> =============================================================
>> 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-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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|