ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of on

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:13:54 -0700
Message-id: <14F99A119897463EB4B93FB491759FD3@Gateway>

Dear Hans,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  My comments are interspersed below,

 

-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 Hans Polzer
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 6:35 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

Thanks for the feedback and restatement of my key points, Rich. I don’t know if there  are more than 3 categories of reality, but I suspect there may be, and there are likely to be useful subcategories in many operational contexts. I’d be interested in any thoughts on possible other categories of reality where the grounding/frames of reference are something other than physical sensors/laws, human institutions, and human feelings about a context, entity, or event/trend.

 

It seems to me that the number of possible categories is virtually limitless.  I had thought you meant to limit the list by constraining top level categories, under which can be any number of others.  I am probably not the right person to develop a total list of top level categories, since I find most of the lists we (including I) trade in posts on this list.  It would be nice to find a short list that is all encompassing at the top level, but that hasn’t really happened in a satisfactory way on this list yet.  It may not be possible due to the divergence of our (the list members’) viewpoints. 

 

One question would be whether “alternate realities” are a modality of the other three categories, or a separate category in its own right. If we create a pseudo physical reality in a network environment such as Second Life, we could do so using the laws of physics as we understand them in the physical reality we know today, or we could create a simulation of a “universe” in which the laws of physics are different, or use different constants. Yes, this could be viewed as part of yet another “conceptual reality”, but it may be useful in some contexts to treat this as a different physical reality, especially if we want other applications and models that interact with and represent the physical reality we know to operate in this alternate physical reality by accepting simulated sensor inputs as if they came from the physical reality we know. In case this seems to be a “stretch”, consider that we already conduct “rehearsal” operations in a location that isn’t the final location, but is set up to “look like” the final target location. And many movies already do this through CGI and other techniques. Note the seeming violation of the laws of gravity in the movie Avatar.

 

Yes, much of the cgi technology seems to show obvious craftsmanship instead of covering up the seams of production methods.  I would prefer more realistic movie examples, of which there are many, but as you state, they are simulations (simulacra?) not reality as filmed. 

 

I should also note that a context can be very narrow/constrained in scope, or it can be very broad (epic?) as seen by the different participants. And there can be many, many operative scope dimensions in each type of reality. So the important thing for me is more the operative scope dimensions than the number of reality categories they can be “binned” into.

 

That is an interesting thought.  If you capture the viewpoints of every participant, and then find common conceptualizations (what few I would expect to find), then enumerate ALL the dimensions conceptualized by ALL participants, that would cover all available evidence.  However, it is still an open list because new participants can arrive and take part at any time in many situations. 

 

That way of elaborating the definition of concepts seems like a very promising one, nevertheless.  But the idea of “context” is still puzzling; each participant views a subjective context made up of the objects, properties, relationships and actions which that participant views.  How would you handle two participants with divergent viewpoints?  Does that mean that there is AT LEAST one context per participant, or can all the contexts be lumped together?  What would you do about inconsistent conceptualizations among participants?

 

The only reason I use the categories is to help system developers/sponsors to understand what the nature of the information sources need to be to represent their desired/target contexts and the scope of those contexts on the network (or what the inherent limitations of those representations might be because they require surrogates or inferencing from significantly incomplete information).

 

Hans

 

Yes, in most AI systems in practice, incomplete information is the rule rather than the exception,

 

-Rich

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:28 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

Dear Hans,

 

You wrote:

I would describe context as having scope, with some of the scope dimensions representing physical reality attributes important to that context and other scope dimensions representing conceptual reality attributes, including social reality attributes important to that context. Of course, different participants will have different perspectives on a shared context, and for each such perspective the operative scope dimensions and associated scope values will be somewhat or radically different.

 

Yes, I can agree with that description.  I’m sure you would agree that in fact ANY returned N-tuples from ANY query would be comprised of N values retrieved or calculated from a collection of (not necessarily N) columns that are each possibly physical, possibly conceptual, and possibly social in origin.  Any combination of those three characterizations would fit the description, even if there are zero columns of any one, two or three of the above.  But if every N-tuple returned has only one or the other of the three kinds of columns, does that leave out other characterizations beyond the three (physical, conceptual, social).  Do you consider that list of three kinds exhaustive, or simply typical?  Are there more than three kinds?

 

I see that you also agree that the perceiver P2 of a context has a subjective view of the said N-tuple, and the original recorder P1 of the columns’ values also had a subjective view when she recorded one of the columns. 

 

Perhaps the chosen columns were entered by different perceivers, perhaps even hundreds of data providers.  So by the time person P2 formulates an interpretation of said query response, the information has flowed through at least those two cycles of interpretation, including at least P1. 

 

But quite possibly, hundreds of perceivers played a role in assigning values to the columns.  For example, medical knowledge of diagnoses and treatments recorded in databases could easily have contributions from hundreds of healthcare providers.  The likelihood of such a database being consistent seems vanishingly small from an ontological viewpoint. 

 

Thanks for your comments,

-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 Hans Polzer
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:22 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

Rich,

 

I would describe context as having scope, with some of the scope dimensions representing physical reality attributes important to that context  and other scope dimensions representing conceptual reality attributes, including social reality attributes important to that context. Of course, different participants will have different perspectives on a shared context, and for each such perspective the operative scope dimensions and associated scope values will be somewhat or radically different.

 

My original example of a “piece of land” is illustrative, since I didn’t specify any scope extent – although I did allude to that fact that there are many physical reality scope dimensions associated with both the concept of a piece of land, and the physical reality of any given (i.e., specific) piece of land. My aside “leaving aside the issue of thickness into the earth and the air above the land” was intended to convey that, but was clearly inadequate to that task, as the subsequent emails evidenced. Clearly, the shared context of such a “piece of land” among, say, a homeowner, a geologist, or a nearby airport operator would have significantly different scope dimensions and dimension values/value ranges for each such participant in the shared context. Different participants may also have different frames of reference (e.g., language, location descriptors, descriptors for soil/ground/vegetation/etc) for representing scope dimensions and dimension values, even if they agree on what the important scope attributes of the shared context are, such as the location, shape, size/extent, and temporal interval of the piece of land in question.

 

Hans

 

Hans

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:53 PM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

Dear Doug,

 

You wrote:

Or course, what can be physically measured depends upon context.  In various contexts, things beyond a certain (temporal or linear) scale would be out of context and not part of that context's physical reality.  And, of course, context is a conceptual, not physical concept -- although it may be given a physical definition.

 

One way to view context is as a collection of properties and relations about a situation.  In that view, context is possibly physical, and possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either. 

 

For example, if I am recording objects and their properties in a database, then a query which returns a situation description may have either conceptual structure (if they are MY concepts that were recorded) or physical structure (if the returned values are solely physical SENSOR measurements). 

 

In actual practice, a context can mix both physical and subjective (“conceptual” if you prefer) estimates of reality, and usually does in most practical database applications. 

 

So, IMHO, situations are every bit as slippery and subjective as concepts.  Situations are just more articulated since they usually comprise both concepts and sensor readings. 

 

-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: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:56 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of ontologies

 

On Wed, March 21, 2012 21:07, William Frank wrote:

> As we have also discussed separately, I think you make a nice and useful

> distincition here, but I do believe that these uses of the words

> "physical"

> and "conceptual" are different from the way the words were used in the

> founding subject for this thread, or in the article in question, or in the

> history and philosopy of science.  There, " a piece of land" is ***also**

> something that only can be percieved to exist by having conceptual glasses

> that let you see some directly observable pheonomia (sensations of colors

> and touch and sound), and turn these into a concrete "thing".

 

I agreed up until the word "concrete".

 

ANYTHING can only be PERCEIVED to exist by having conceptual glasses

that let one OBSERVE some PHYSICAL PHENOMENA and then model it as a MENTAL

"thing".

 

This is a definition of perception.

 

Is a "piece of land" physical?  Since it has mass and a physical location,

one could conclude it is.

 

Is a "piece of land" a MENTAL concept?  In so far as its borders are not

defined by physical criteria (e.g. a cliff edge or concrete curb) it is.

Any given spot on a "piece of land" on earth is on googleplexes of

connected pieces of land as changing the border by a micron at any

location would define a different "piece of land".

 

What constitutes an OBJECT in the real world in many cases is a conceptual

definition.  When is a brick that starts flaking no longer the "same"

brick?

Some things in the natural world tend to act as individual objects, but

they can gain and loose pieces, and change shape and location.

Fundamental particles (electrons, quarks, ...) apparently can not gain or

loose parts and can be considered to be real-world OBJECTS irrespective of

conceptualization, but almost any other "physical object"  that is modeled

is in some sense a conceptual object, since its boundaries (temporal

and/or physical) are temporally defined.

 

> So, *everything* we see in any world we are in is part of a conceptual

 

If we see it and identify it, identification makes (our representation of) it

part of our conceptual framework.

 

> framework, whether that be one you categorize nicely as physical,

> "conceptual" (in your special meaning) or "social".  That is, mass and

> land are "physical"* concepts*,

> ownership and value are "conceptual" *concepts*,

> and valuation is a "social": *concept*.

 

Ownership, value, and valuation are all social concepts.

 

> All are concepts meaning 2, and

> also, all are based, in different ways, on exteranl  reality that must be

> **assumed** or taken to be "objective", as well as on how we classify the

> things in that reality.

 

The "external reality" of a social concept is a feature of an intangible

social reality.

 

>  Even though, as you say, all the  good words are

> already taken, I think that "conceptual reality", as separate from

> "physical reality"  is a misleading _expression_.

 

Why do you consider the distinction to be misleading?  "Physical reality"

applies to things that can [at least "conceptually" 8)# ] be measured by

physical devices.  "Conceptual reality" deals with interpretation.

 

Or course, what can be physically measured depends upon context.  In

various contexts, things beyond a certain (temporal or linear) scale would

be out of context and not part of that context's physical reality.  And,

of course, context is a conceptual, not physical concept -- although it may

be given a physical definition.

 

>  In fact, I find the physics of string theory to be alot more "conceptual"

> and less based in "reality" than

> following my freinds preferences on facebook.

 

The first is an issue of context, not physicality.  Preferences are by

definition conceptual.  Being part of a "conceptual reality" does not

make something less "real" -- just differentially real.

 

>  Further, if I

> think I see a peice of land, other people may show me that I am probably

> mistaken, if none of them see it.  So, social reality bleeds into the

> physical.

 

i wouldn't consider this "social reality".

 

-- doug foxvog

 

>  (As it does in physics itself, where being laughed at is a

> motivator of what physicists see, 'I would bet.)

> 

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 

>> Just to elaborate a bit, a piece of land is a physical reality (leaving

>> aside the issue of thickness into the earth and the air above the land).

>> The concept that land can be owned is a conceptual reality (nothing

>> physical changes when land is owned by some entity). That land can have

>> value is also a conceptual reality. What the value might be of a

>> specific

>> piece of land is a social reality (as recent history in the US

>> demonstrates). The fact that a specific entity owns a specific piece of

>> land is mostly a conceptual reality, but has elements of social reality

>> (i.e., what happens when the revolution comes? Will the ownership of the

>> land still be recognized by others? The value will almost certainly be

>> significantly different after the revolution – as might be the

>> currency

>> used to represent the value of the land). ****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> Hans****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:

>> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Hans Polzer

>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:51 PM

>> 

>> *To:* '[ontolog-forum] '

>> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research

>> program of ontologies****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> William,****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> Since we are dragging physicists into this discussion, I would observe

>> that the issue is a lot like the “wave – particle” duality of

>> light and

>> quantum mechanics. Humans share a conceptual reality (if diverse and

>> from

>> different perspectives), as well as an understanding of physical

>> reality.

>> Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. As we have discussed

>> separately, there is also a social reality – what is real and

>> acceptable in

>> different social circles, such as on the TV show “Survivor” – in

>> which the

>> survivor is rarely (never?) the one best able to deal with physical –

>> or

>> conceptual – reality. It’s called reality TV for a reason.****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> Hans****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *William

>> Frank

>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:37 PM

>> *To:* [ontolog-forum]

>> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research

>> program of ontologies****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> 'To me, the problem is in this supposed "dichotomy".  Implicit in

>> saying:

>> 

>> "The ontology is build upon universals in reality* rather than*

>> concepts"

>> 

>> I think that this is ***not*** a dichotomy. I think that every

>> perspective

>> on reality is structured according to human concepts, But that the

>> reality

>> is ***still there***, and is what it is, not something we just "make

>> up".

>> Or that cultures "just make up."  (If that were true,then there would be

>> no

>> reason to prefer insulin to incantations for curing diabetes.  We could

>> solve the world healthcare crisis over night.)  Only, we can't observe

>> it

>> without putting our own mark on it.   How much and what kiind of a mark,

>> is

>> what varies.  Just as in the "nature versus nurture"  non- "arguments".

>> 

>> I think that this what of the theoretical linguists cited in the paper

>> are

>> saying (Lakoff, Jackendoff).   I think that this is what physicists

>> understand very well.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> For example, the paper cited says:

>> 

>> "Is ontology about the 'real world' (as seen, say by a physicist), *or

>> rather*, should it take cognition into account"

>> 

>> There's that "rather" again.  Whoa!!! who has a more complex,

>> human-created ontology than physicists???  The Ether?? Wait a minute.

>> (well

>> that's ok because it was 'wrong'?)  What about Dark Matter????

>> Strings???????  Force, mass, and distance were plenty bad enough.  Their

>> ontology provide the explanatory framework for what they more directly

>> observe (but even those are intemediated by instruments whose

>> measurements

>> depend on theories).     But, of course, every time there is a new

>> theory,

>> that explains things better, and is simpler, most physicists believe

>> that

>> the ontology on which this new theory is based is *closer* to what is

>> 'really real.'   Yet, they know they will never be done, and can always

>> be

>> proved wrong even in their most basic assumptions.

>> 

>> I believe that this has been well demonstrated to be **very subtle* in

>> the

>> last century, and we should be building on that knowledge.  Not some

>> simple

>> either -or at all. That cultures as a whole strive to explain more than

>> they can, sometimes woefully inadequately.  But  international

>> scientific

>> culture has learned to be increasingly modest about what it claims to

>> "know", and to increasingly understand the importance of the role of the

>> observer in the equation, from Heisenberg's Uncertainly principle and

>> Godel's incompleteness proofs to the kinds of demonstration that Rich

>> was

>> sending around.    Yet, this does not mean that reality is *just*

>> whatever

>> you say it is.   You can't see *anything* without your conceptual

>> glasses

>> on, but you couldn't see anything, either, unless there was something to

>> look at.

>> 

>> If we have a robot that can see obstacles, it needs to have a theory

>> that

>> organizes its visual field into "things".  Are the things 'really

>> there',

>> or are they a construct of the robot's processing?   This is the kind of

>> question that I think has been shown to be without much meaning, or at

>> least without much use asking.

>> 

>> So, given this, from a practical point of view, I agree completely with

>> what Mathew West says below.   Which we emphasize will depend on our

>> interests, just as environmental medicine will look at nurture while

>> genetics is looking at nature.   Personally, I think ontologies need to

>> be

>> reconciled with viewpoints, but believing in viewpoints as I do, I can

>> also

>> well imagine that there could be a use for a more "realist" kind of

>> ontology.

>> 

>> But, to argue about this, that is, insist on which perspective on how we

>> organize or perceptions as manifestations of things in themselves is

>> 'right' -- that the conceptual frameworks are themselves really out

>> there

>> or are created by people's minds, seems no more necessary than I can see

>> it

>> to be useful.

>> 

>> Finally, I think that this is what Kant said in the Critique of Pure

>> Reason, and that just about everybody who has spent much mind space

>> since

>> has agreed,at least outside of philosophy of mathematics. I that we

>> don't

>> need to rehash metaphysics without the benefit of the world's greatest

>> geniuses, who we can have in the room with us.

>> 

>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section1.html

>> 

>> I think that as temperamentally and in detail at odds as they were, both

>> Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein are both Kantians.

>> 

>> So, I wholehearted support "research" into how to put Computer Science

>> ontology work onto a firmer foundation, but I think that the research

>> would

>> take the form of learning more of what has already been done, and

>> applying

>> it to computer science and engineering.

>> 

>> 

>> Wm

>> 

>> **

>> ******

>> 

>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Matthew West

>> <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>

>> wrote:****

>> 

>> Dear Marcelino,****

>> 

>> I think you will find people here who favour one or other of these

>> approaches. Which they favour will often be determined by the kinds of

>> problems they are interested in.****

>> 

>> Me. I’m a realist interested in the application of ontology to

>> engineering.

>> ****

>> 

>> Regards****

>> 

>> Matthew West ****

>> 

>> Information Junction****

>> 

>> Tel: +44 1489 880185****

>> 

>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279****

>> 

>> Skype: dr.matthew.west****

>> 

>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx****

>> 

>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/****

>> 

>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/****

>> 

>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in

>> England

>> and Wales No. 6632177.****

>> 

>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,

>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.****

>> 

>> *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:

>> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Marcelino Sente

>> *Sent:* 21 March 2012 18:16

>> *To:* ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research

>> program of ontologies****

>> 

>> In this paper, the author discuss some aspects raised by this topic and

>> present a "cognitivist ontology".****

>> 

>> 

>> http://www.mind-consciousness-language.com/CarstensenTowardsCognitivistOntologies.pdf

>> ****

>> 

>> The paper present a contrast between two main views within the research

>> program in ontologies:****

>> 

>> - Realist view: the ontology is build upon universals in reality rather

>> than concepts. A good ontology is one which corresponds to reality as it

>> exists beyond our concepts.****

>> 

>> - Conceptualist view: the ontology is a explicit specification of a

>> conceptualization. A good ontology is one which captures our shared

>> conceptualization.****

>> 

>> 

>> I would like to know the position of the members of this forum about

>> this

>> aspects.****

>> 

>> Thanks****

>> 

>> ** **

>> 

>> 2012/3/16 Marcelino Sente <zaratruta@xxxxxxxxx>****

>> 

>> Let consider this assertion (refered as A1):

>> “It should be emphasized that we are talking about a perceived world

>> and

>> not a metaphysical world without a knower” (Rosch 1978, p.29) ****

>> 

>> How this assertion impacts on the research program of ontologies?****

>> 

>> Some initiatives regarding conceptual modeling, systems

>> interoperability,

>> and conceptual analysis have been using of theories coming from the

>> domain

>> of formal ontology. I say "formal ontology", in the sense of Husserl, as

>> analogous to formal logic. Whilst formal logic deals with formal logical

>> structures (e.g.,truth, validity, consistency) independently of their

>> veracity, formal ontology deals with formal ontological structures

>> (e.g.,

>> theory of parthood, types and instantiation, identity, dependence,

>> unity),

>> i.e., with formal aspects of entities irrespective of their particular

>> nature. Some (so called) foundational ontologies (as UFO - unified

>> foundational ontology) embody several conceptions coming from the

>> "formal

>> ontology". So...What A1 say about the use of conceptions imported from

>> "formal ontology" to the territory of semantic web, communication among

>> computer and humans and systems interoperability? ****

>> 

>> How can we view and compare the contributions related to the realist

>> semantics and cognitive semantics, regarding our objetives expressed

>> above

>> (semantic web, communication among computer and humans and systems

>> interoperability)? Does make sense think in terms of cognitive semantics

>> in

>> the reserach program of ontologies?****

>> 

>> Reference:

>> E. Rosch (1978) Principles of Categorization. in: E. Rosch and B. Lloyd

>> (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. pp. 27-48, Lawrence Erlbaum

>> Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.****

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _________________________________________________________________

>> 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****

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> --

>> William Frank

>> 

>> 413/376-8167****

>> 

>> 

>> _________________________________________________________________

>> 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

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> --

> William Frank

> 

> 413/376-8167

> 

> 

> This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees

> only.

> It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,

> without the permission of the sender.

> 

> _________________________________________________________________

> 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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>