ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "Andries van Renssen" <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:15:44 -0400
Message-id: <ac6e4e797f734f8938e6ce0af6883a97.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, September 26, 2012 08:53, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> On 10 september 2012 at 20:41  doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Thu, September 6, 2012 16:39, Andries van Renssen wrote:    (01)

>> > Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical
>> > area on earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.    (02)

>> In that case, a school district would have a mass.  A rock and a clump
>> of dirt would be part of the school district.
>> If i dig to plant a bush in my yard,
>> i am making a hole in the school district.    (03)

>> School districts, in my experience, are defined by boundaries -- and
>> thus are spatial regions --
>> they are not defined by mass of certain sorts that
>> happens to be within those boundaries.    (04)

> [AvR] I agree that a (school) district is defined by its boundary. But the
> piece of land that is defined by that boundary is nevertheless a physical
> object, and it has a mass, although its value is unknown and not of
> interest.    (05)

Sure, what falls within the spatial region has mass.  The boundary of a
school district may "define" a unique piece of land (at any given time), but
it is not concerned with land.  It is concerned with people who reside within
the boundary, whether their residence is 100 meters above the land,
resting on it, or dug into it.  Legal definitions of "reside" come into play.
IMHO, the buildings, the people, the land, and the bus stops are not "part"
of the school district, but are located within it.    (06)

> I think that the concept 'school district' is a subtype of role, and not a
> subtype of physical object.    (07)

I'd agree that it isn't a type of physical object, but would claim that it is
a spatial object, but not a physical one.    (08)

By "role", i interpret you to mean a class that is not rigid:  something can
be an instance of it in some context (temporal or otherwise) and not an
instance of it in another context.  This would include Baby, Student, and
President.  I'm not sure if you would include Statue as a role that a mass
of clay might have, but that's probably immaterial to this discussion.    (09)

Such roles i would consider to by subtypes.  But i guess that's a matter
of definition of "subtype".    (010)

Under this definition of 'role', 'school district' is a role of 'immaterial
spatial object', which is disjoint from 'physical object'.    (011)

> But the role player is a physical object.    (012)

I can't see the physicality.    (013)

> Because for a particular piece of land D that has a role that is
> classified as a school district,    (014)

Why would someone classify land as a school district?  I would
locate land within a school district.  I would give no more primacy
to the land than to the buildings (at least the residences) within
the district.    (015)

> it holds that D is a physical object, because 'piece
> of land' is a subtype of physical object.    (016)

Yes, a particular piece of land, D, is a physical object.    (017)

> Thus both are true:
> * D <has a role as a> school district    (018)

This is what i question:  that a piece of land would have such a role.    (019)

> and
> * D <is classified as a> piece of land (i.e. a physical object)    (020)

> The expression 'a school district is a physical object' is a short-cut for
> the extended expression 'a school district D is a physical object with a
> role as school district'.    (021)

If so, i disagree with this definition of school district.    (022)

> The expression 'D <is a> school dictrict' is a synonyms of 'D <has a role
> as a> school district'.    (023)

These would only be synonyms, after 'school district' is defined as a 'role'.    (024)

> I call this a 'classification by role', which can also
> be expressed as 'D <is classified by role as a> school district.
> Those three expressions are equivalent.    (025)

Fine.    (026)

> The reason why the expression 'I dig a hole in the school district' sounds
> odd is: because that expression is a short-cut for 'I dig a hole in the
> land that has a role as school district'.    (027)

So why should that be weird?  For valid roles, that would not be strange:
+  "I dug a hole in the yard" =>
     "I dig a hole in the land that has the role as yard"
+  "I fed the student" => "I fed the person who has the role of student"    (028)

> You defined the concept 'spatial region' and Henk defined the concept
> 'conceptual reality' as concepts that are by definition non-physical.    (029)

By 'spatial region' i meant the intersection of spatial thing and
intangible individual.    (030)

> My impression is that if you would apply the concept 'role' (of a physical
> object), then the role player can still be a physical object, although the
> kind of role is a subtype of role and not a subtype of physical object.    (031)

I just don't see immaterial things such as spatial regions having a
role player that is a physical object.    (032)

>> > Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in
>> > themselves,    (033)

>> This depends upon the definition of "located in".  In some systems,
>> a "located in" predicate is reflexive.    (034)

> [AvR] Are those predicates reflexive in order to solve a theoretical
> position or is it true that physical objects (including also spatial
> objects) cannot be located in themselves? Can you give an example a
> spatial object that is located in itself?    (035)

As i said, that depends upon the definition of "located in".  Using one
definition, every spatial object is "located in" itself.  Using another,
no spatial object is "located in" itself.  Both predicates can be useful --
they just need to be carefully distinguished.    (036)

The reflexive forms do make some rules simpler (by requiring one less
conjunct).    (037)

>> > but they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles,
>> > although always in different (individual) relations.    (038)

>> I presume you mean relation statements or "relation instances".
> [AvR] Yes, as expressions of different facts.    (039)

>> > I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
>> > relation.    (040)

>> Some OpenCyc subtypes of <located in> are:
>>    aboardTransporter   alignedCylinderWithin   anchorPointInLineSegment
>>    artifactFoundInLocation   basinOfBodyOfWater   carriedIn
>>    cavityInteriorRegionOf   cellularNetworkCoversRegion
>>    completeOuterLayer   connected-SheetTransectsAlong
>>    connectedAlongInside   connectedToInside   contentOfFreeSpace
>>    cospatial   countryOfAddress   countyInState   countyOfAddress
>>    curveOnSurface   damsStream   ellipsoidalSection
>>    embeddedCylinderInSheet   endPointOfLineSegment   equatorOfSpheroid
>>    equipmentOfFacility   eventOccursAt   exactlyLocatedAt-Spatial
>>    exposureToHarmfulSubstanceOccursAt   genericPathway-Complete
>>    genericPathway-Exact   greatCircleOfSphere   greatEllipseOfEllipsoid
>>    greatEllipseOfSpheroid   groupMembersFoundInLocation
>>    groupResidesInRegion   groundsOfBuilding  hotelInRegion   in-Among
>>    in-ContClosed   in-ContCompletely   in-ContFullOf   in-ContGeneric
>>    in-ContOpen   in-Held   in-ImmersedFully   in-Permeates   in-Rooted
>>    in-Snugly   inRegion   inRegion-Underspecified   infectingOccursAt
>>    infoPathway-Complete   infoPathway-Exact   innervates
>>    linesInside-Skinlike   localeOfElection   localityOfObject
>>    locusOfCellularProcess-Cell   locusOfCellularProcess-CellPart
>>    lowestPointInRegion   minimumEnvelopeForGeometry
>>    motionPathway-Complete   motionPathway-Exact   objectFoundInLocation
>>    outerLayer   packagedIn   parallelOfSpheroid   pathInsideRegion
>>    pluggedInto   pointOfSale   portalPassedThrough   processRunningOn
>>    protrudesInto   residenceOfOrganization   salesTerritoryOfAddress
>>    screwedIn   situationLocation   smallCircleOfSphere   spans-
>> Bridgelike
>>    sphericSection   spheroidalSection   startPointOfLineSegment
>> sticksInto
>>    sticksInto-2D   streetSystemOfArea   structureInUrbanArea
>>    suspendedIntaskInsAreaOfOperations   teamRepresentsPolity
>>    terminalPointOfLineSegment   tourIsOfRegion   trajectory-Complete
>>    vertexOfGeometricallyDescribableThing   vertexOfLineString
>>    vertexOfPolygon   vertexOfPolyhedron   waterOfBodyOfWater
>>    whollyLocatedAt-Spatial   worksFoundInStructure
>> In contexts in which a GeopoliticalEntity is considered to be a
>> GeographicalRegion as well as an Organization more specializations
>> are available:
>>    cityInState   eventOccursInCountry  hotelInCity   majorCityInState
>>    metropolitanAreaOf   placeInCity   stateOfAddress   territoryOf    (041)

> [AvR] This seems to be an impressive list of subtypes. I will study them
> in more detail, because my question is
> whether they are kinds of relations that
> are required or valuable for a formal language as a definition of a rich
> semantic expression capability.
> Another question is whether they are all true subtypes of <being located
> in>, thus whether the taxonomy is pure. Do you also have subtypes of
> <being connected to> and <being a boundary of> and <occurring in>?    (042)

I find 314 specializations of #$touches.    (043)

Spatial boundaries are covered by the predicates:
bordersOn   bordersOn-AgentAgnostic  boundaryOfSpatialThing
embeddedRegion   emptiesInto   linkedByBodyOfWater
politiesBorderEachOther   riversides    (044)

Spatial, as opposed to temporal, <occurring in> predicates would include:
combatZoneOfOperation   crimeScene   eventOccursAt
eventPrimarilyOccursAt   eventOccursInCountry
exposureToHarmfulSubstanceOccursAt   genericPathway-Complete
genericPathway-Exact   infectingOccursAt   infoPathway-Complete
infoPathway-Exact   localeOfElection   locusOfCellularProcess-Cell
locusOfCellularProcess-CellPart   motionPathway-Complete
motionPathway-Exact   pointOfSale   portalPassedThrough
situationLocation   taskInsAreaOfOperations   tourIsOfRegion
trajectory-Complete    (045)

Related is: eventOccursAtLocationType, which allows one to say that
the event occurred in a swamp (office building, etc.) without specifying
which one.    (046)


> At first glance there are a number of the above kinds of relations that
> seem to be overloaded with information about their role players.    (047)

The reason for such specializations is that rules apply to them that do
not apply to more general predicates.  The specializations would
normally have more restricted argument types.  Without the specializations,
the rules would be more complex (including the argument restrictions)
and would not be segregated in to manageable sets.    (048)

> For example:
> * InRegion
> * hotelInRegion
> * hotelInCity
> * placeInCity
> * cityInState
> * majorCityInState
> Why only these and why not many, many more similar ones?    (049)

Specific rules applied to the city and state predicates.
The "hotelIn..." rules were created for a specific project and probably
were loaded with rules.    (050)

I said that these were some of the specializations.  There are others.
The context in which i asked for the specializations included the
context in which the "hotelIn" rules appeared when i included the
"dualist" context in which Geographical Entities are considered to be
Geographical Regions.    (051)

> And why is e.g. hotelInRegion not a subtype of InRegion?    (052)

hotelInRegion is a specialization of inRegion.  The list was alphabetical.
The various predicates are related by a DAG of specialization (which i
did not provide).    (053)

> But why do you think these add semantic expression power to just
> <is located in>?    (054)

Their existence does not.  It is the rules attached to them that do.    (055)

> For example, hotelInCity. This appear to be a subtypes that has a
> constraint on its roles that the located role shall be played by a hotel
> and the locator role shall be played by a city.
> What is the additional semantics of 'Hilton hotel A <hotelInCity> New
> York' above 'Hilton hotel A <locatedIn> New York'?
> when Hilton hotel A <is classified as a> hotel and New York <is classified
> as a> city. What is the reason to duplicate or replace these
> classifications by (the definition of) the kind of relation?    (056)

It makes life easier for the inference engine.  If there are 20,000 rules on
<locatedIn> and most rules have two additional constraints (on
argument types), then when a new assertion is made with <locatedIn>
each of these rules becomes applicable.  If there are 400 specializations
of <locatedIn> that do not have argument type constraints (since they
already exist on the predicate) then when a new assertion is made
maybe only a few hundred rules become applicable (depending upon the
number of rules for the predicate in the assertion and for its
generalizations).    (057)

> It is an implied classification that may even conflict with an explicit
> classification.    (058)

Such a conflict can inform the agent that makes the assertion that
the assertion may be faulty or missing -- or could conclude such information.    (059)

>> > The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a kind
>> > of thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation
>> <classification of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing>
>> > as the role players are different.    (060)

>> In that each has different restrictions on argument types, yes.    (061)

>> > In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for the
>> > first kind of relation.    (062)

>> OK.  That was not clear in the text that Kingsley presented.    (063)

>> > Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
>> > classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things.    (064)

>> This is a rule in your system.  Kingsley asked "what is not to like"
>> about this text snippet.
>> The lack of requirement that kinds of things need not
>> be classified is something that falls in this category since the lack
>> of classification limits the type of reasoning that can be performed.    (065)

> [AvR] The statement that "all individual things 'shall be' classified" is
> indeed a rule. Semantically it is not a necessity in Formal English,
> because expressions can be interpreted without it.
> However, I think it is a valuable rule, because it adds possibilities
> for verification of the correctness (consistency) of expressions.
> Therefore, the rule is intended as a (strong) recommendation.    (066)

Agreed.  The statement "all things 'shall be' classified" is a stronger
rule.  IMO, it is valuable because it adds more possibilities for
verification of the correctness (consistency) of expressions than
the more limited rule that you state.    (067)

> For kinds of things there is another rule that makes their explicit
> classification superfluous. That is the rules that their definition shall
> include the specification of the supertype concept(s). As the highest
> supertype is classified as being a kind of thing, all subtypes inherit
> that 'classification of class'.    (068)

In general, inheritance does not work this way.  For the meta-class,
"class" it does.    (069)

Consider the classes: Elephant, African Elephant, and Asian Elephant.
The first is a superclass of the other two.  However, if Elephant is an
instance of Biological Genus, that does not inherit to the other two.
They may be instances of Biological Species, which may be defined
as being disjoint with Biological Genus.  Note that such disjointness
does not preclude a genus with but a single species.  It just mean
that those two classes are different classes -- they can have different
assertions and rules (e.g., when the first instance of the class came
into existence), even though they (currently) have the same members.    (070)

> Thus there is no limitation on the type of reasoning.    (071)


>> > Kinds of things shall not necessarily be classified,
>> >but 'shall be' generalized, by
>> > being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).    (072)

>> Another rule in your system.
> [AvR] The question is not whether it is in 'my system'. The question is
> whether it is a valuable rule in a kind of Formal English.    (073)

Actually, it is two rules.  I find the rule that they 'shall be' generalized
valuable, but the rule that they 'shall not necessarily be' classified
as problematic.    (074)

> In my semantic theory kinds of things are defined by their supertype kinds
> of things and the specification of the mutual distinctions between the
> subtypes. This rule only states that that should be made explicit.    (075)

No.  The second rule states this.  The first rule states more.    (076)

> If obeyed, the rule enables additional verification of the correctness of
> expressions and provides knowledge and possible requirements by
> inheritance.    (077)

This is true of the second rule.  Not the first.    (078)

> Therefore, it is a strongly recommended rule.    (079)

I would agree with this recommendation for the second rule.
I would disagree with the first.    (080)

> My recommendation is that parsers should give warnings
> if the rule is not obeyed, but correct interpretation is still possible.
> Thus: why not?    (081)

The ontology gains more with requiring that the kinds be classified.
Classifications such as "stuff type', 'object type', 'continuant',
'occurrent',
'independent thing', and 'rigid class' can be very useful in restricting
faulty subclass assertions lower in the ontology.   In cases in which a
class is partitioned in multiple ways, identifying meta-classes for the
various ways is useful: Biological Species/Genus/Family/Order... vs.
Gender vs. Organism Type By Life Stage (which you would call a set
of roles).    (082)

>> > Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic
>> distinction.    (083)

>> Certainly.    (084)

>> > If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost.    (085)

>> As a description of your system, yes.    (086)

>> You are referring to your statement:
>> >> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
>> >> > expression of facts about individual things."    (087)

>> So the point is that your system provides a structure for expressing
>> facts about individual things, but it does not necessarily provide a
>> structure for expression of facts about kinds of things.    (088)

>> By eliminating the restriction to facts about individual things,
>> more can be expressed.  In responding to Kingsley's question,
>> i was stating that i would like the more inclusive definitions
>> of data structures better.    (089)

> [AvR] This is a misunderstanding. I clarified that there is a "universal
> basic semantic data structure for the expression of facts about individual
> things" NEXT TO a similar "universal basic semantic data structure for the
> expression of facts about kinds of things".
> Those data structures differ, because there are semantic differences
> applicable for the interpretation of the relations.    (090)

I think you mean that the data structures in your system differ for
these two types of statements ("facts").  We have moved from a
general discussion of ontologies to a discussion of a specific
implementation system.    (091)

Why should (naturalHabitat AsianElephant ContinentOfAsia) be
syntactically expressed in a different way than
(livesIn JoeTheAsianElephant BronxZoo)?    (092)

> More inclusive definitions would eliminate those semantic differences, as
> was illustrated by the distinction between the semantics of
> 'classification of individual thing' and 'classification of kind of thing'.    (093)

The semantic difference depends on the predicate.  As long as a thing
is identified as being an 'individual thing' or 'kind of thing', you have
the semantic difference, which more inclusive definitions would not
eliminate.    (094)

>> You also stated:    (095)

>> >> > * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing,
>> >> > because the meaning of a relation between individual things
>> >> > can only be interpreted correctly when
>> >> > each related individual thing is classified, as well
>> >> > as the roles they play and the relation they have.    (096)

>> I wanted to generalize this to apply to relations among kinds of
>> things or between individual things and kinds of things.  Your
>> semantic distinction means that you are not describing these
>> other types of relations.    (097)

> [AvR] You are too fast and should read a bit more. I discussed the
> relations between kinds of things
> (and the relations between individual things and kinds of things)
> separately. That is on purpose, because of the semantic differences.    (098)

Yet you did not assert the corresponding rule for kinds of things.    (099)

> More general statements may be fine, but the more specific statements are
> required for a precise semantic expression capability.    (0100)

The generalized rule would include the specialized rule.    (0101)

If you want to be more precise, you could divide this into two rules -- one
for living things and a second for non-living things.  That would be more
precise, but it would just complicate things.    (0102)

Similarly, you could add a second rule:
* Each kind of thing is classified by a kind of kind of thing,
   because the meaning of a relation between kinds of things
   can only be interpreted correctly when
   each related kind of thing is classified, as well
   as the roles they play and the relation they have.
Of course, this ignores relations between individual things and
kinds of things.    (0103)

Or you could assert a more general rule that covers all three cases:    (0104)

* Each thing is classified by a kind of thing,
   because the meaning of a relation between things
   can only be interpreted correctly when
   each related thing is classified, as well
   as the roles they play and the relation they have.    (0105)

It is this third rule (which covers your rule) that i suggest.    (0106)

-- doug foxvog    (0107)

> -- Andries
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>> > In the other case of the use of 'individual' the sentence was taken
>> out of
>> > contexts, because the original text talks about two basic semantic
>> > structures, one for facts about individual things and another for
>> facts
>> > about kinds of things. So also here the term 'individual' marks an
>> > essential semantic distinction.
>>
>> > I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network.
>>
>> > I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be
>> classified
>> > by more than one kind of thing.
>>
>> > With kind regards,
>> > Till after my holidays,
>> > Andries
>> >
>> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> >> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
>> >> Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2012 7:29
>> >> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
>> >> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, September 5, 2012 12:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > What's not to like about this excerpt:
>> >> >
>> >> > "In its simplest form, this is a structure that is also supported
>> by
>> >> > technologies, such as _RDF_ and _OWL_. However, a semantic model
>> >> > includes the following semantic extensions that support an
>> improved
>> >> > computer interpretation of such sentences and an improved
>> >> > computerized
>> >> > verification of semantic correctness:
>> >>
>> >> Fine.
>> >>
>> >> > * Each kind of relation has a modeled definition. Those semantic
>> >> > definitions of the relation type includes the definition of the
>> >> > required kinds of roles and the allowed kinds of players of such
>> roles.
>>
>> >> Fine.
>>
>> >> > For
>> >> > example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical
>> object
>> >> > in a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located'
>> role.
>>
>> >> There are many kinds of "is located in" relations which are useful
>> to
>> >> tease apart.  A more useful, more generic, form would require a
>> >> spatial object in both the 'locator' and 'located' role.  Non-
>> physical
>> >> spatial objects (such as school districts or police precincts) could
>> >> be in either the 'locator' or 'located' role with such a predicate.
>>
>> >> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object" instead
>> >> of a "physical object".
>>
>> >> > * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing, because
>> the
>> >> > meaning of a relation between individual things can only be
>> >> > interpreted
>> >> > correctly when each related individual thing is classified, as
>> well
>> >> > as the roles they play and the relation they have.
>>
>> >> I would strike the word "individual", since kinds of things (e.g.,
>> >> CanusLupus)
>> >> can also be classified by kinds of (meta) things (e.g.,
>> >> BiologicalSpecies).
>>
>> >> I would also clarify this by noting that each thing can be
>> classified
>> >> by one
>> >> or more kinds of things.
>> >>
>> >> > * The kinds of things are defined by at least a relation with
>> their
>> >> > supertype kinds of things,
>> >>
>> >> Fine.
>> >>
>> >> > thus forming a taxonomy of concepts (a
>> >>
>> >> The word "taxonomy" suggests a tree structure.  This should be
>> >> clarified to make clear that a directed acyclic graph is a valid
>> >> specialization hierarchy.
>> >>
>> >> > specialization hierarchy, also called a subtype-supertype
>> hierarchy).
>> >> > This is necessary for the interpretation of the meaning of the
>> >> > classifiers (city, tower, and 'is located in', as well as
>> 'locator'
>> >> and
>> >> > 'located').
>> >>
>> >> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
>> >> > expression of facts about individual things."
>> >>
>> >> Again, i'd strike the word "individual".
>> >>
>> >> -- doug foxvog
>> >>
>> >> > Source: http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html .
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Kingsley Idehen
>> >> > Founder & CEO
>> >> > OpenLink Software
>> >> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> >> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> >> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> >> > Google+ Profile:
>> https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> >> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _________________________________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>>
>
>    (0108)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (0109)

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