Ed, (01)
My point was that the boundary is not "detectable" through phenomenology.
Rather, I believe that when you are saying it is "detected" or "measurable",
you are actually referring to the inverse. By that I mean that some
agent/device might use cyberspace information (my "conceptual reality")
regarding the location of the boundary (presumably in some coordinate frame
of reference) to convey to some interested party that the location of the
boundary is at some specific point/line in physical space. For example, I
could punch in the coordinates for some property I own into a GPS app on my
smart phone and walk towards the general area of my property, and it would
tell me when I am crossing the property line or am at a particular vertex or
other point marking the boundary of the property. It might even beep or
vibrate or shock me (a la those invisible dog fences) to give me a physical
phenomenology cue as to where the property line is located. However, if I
approach that property without that location information, there is no array
of sensors and computers processing only that sensor data which will detect
that property line. (02)
As an aside, I have precisely this issue with a woodlot I own in Louisa
County, VA. The spray paint I had used in the past has washed off the trees
(yes, not very precise) and the wooden property stakes with flagging tape
installed by the surveyor have rotted away. (03)
The USAF pilot and plane that attacked the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade,
Serbia during the Bosnian War had no way of sensing that the building was
the Chinese Embassy. The pilot in fact hit the exact building he was aiming
at, and it was the correct physical target. Unfortunately, a Serbian
government agency had sold the building to the Chinese shortly before the
war (I don't remember the precise time delta), and that conceptual reality
was not conveyed to and correctly represented in the data base of buildings
in Belgrade used to support targeting of air missions at the time. This root
cause analysis was reported in Aviation Week shortly after the incident
occurred, in case you were wondering how I know this. I suppose one could
imagine cameras that detected/understood markings on the buildings (assuming
they were changed when the Chinese occupied the building) or used fancy
facial feature recognition to detect that people with unexpected racial
characteristics were occupying the building, and thereby infer that there
was something wrong with the target selection prior to launching a precision
munition at it, but that assumes the building was occupied and a heck of a
lot of inferencing from very limited phenomenology cues in a very short time
- and one could still not be sure that it was the Chinese Embassy. (04)
By the way, do you know where your money is? How much of it is a physical
reality? No fair looking in your mattress! :-) (05)
Hans (06)
Hans (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Barkmeyer [mailto:edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:02 PM
To: Hans Polzer
Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures (08)
Hans, (09)
OK. I am not remotely expert in geopolitical ontology. I think we agree on
the idea that a 'school district' is a (geo)political entity that has some
association to a land area. The land area is a physical thing and it may be
differently associated with a lot of other entities, and the political
entity may nominally retain its identity whilst becoming associated with
somewhat different land areas over time. My concern was not to equate the
political entity with the land area, and we agree on that. (010)
I will not argue strongly for my position on boundaries. NIST is an
organization for which "physically measurable" is the notion of "sensible",
and as you say, the idea of "physically measurable" goes beyond the usual
five senses in "sensing" physical phenomena. So, for us, it is not about
whether the boundary is "well-marked"; it is about whether it can be
"detected" or "measured". But I will readily admit that this is a narrow
view. (011)
-Ed (012)
--
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 (013)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have
not been reviewed by any Government authority." (014)
Hans Polzer wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I guess I have a different perspective on this, based on my own
experiences
> in the construction industry and property that I own, as well as in
military
> information systems. In most cases, the boundary of a piece of property is
> not well marked and is not in general physically "sensible". New
technology
> allows us to consult the relevant bureau of land records and find out the
> geospatial reference points that constitute the boundary and make them
> "visible" or let us virtually "sense" them via cyberspace, but they are
not
> being sensed by phenomenology evidenced by the land in question, the
> occasional surveyor installed steel rod notwithstanding. My point is that
> the identity and location of the piece land and the ownership of the land
is
> a reality that exists primarily in the institutions that human society has
> created. If there is no fence or other physical marking, or it gets
cratered
> by some natural gas explosion, you still own the land, thanks to the
bureau
> of land records or equivalent local institution.
>
> And it seems to me that treating a school district as a physical object is
a
> shortcut for associating the conceptual reality of a specific school
> district with a physical extent in geographic space explicitly. I'm OK
with
> saying that a school district is a role that a particular physical piece
of
> land might assume, but it's certainly not the only role that the same
piece
> of land might assume, and there may be a multiplicity of school districts
> that the same piece of land might be a part of. And like I said in my
> earlier email, some school districts might not be geospatial in nature at
> all, but use some other characterization attributes to determine
> membership/jurisdiction. So we need to be careful about the implicit
> association of a conceptual entity such as a precinct or school district
> with a specific geospatial extent. Better to make that association
explicit
> and dynamic (i.e., check current authoritative source in cyberspace for
> current boundaries before determining whether some piece of land is in the
> district). And if I had to make a list of roles that might be applicable
to
> a given piece of land, membership in a school district or a precinct would
> not be first on the list.
>
> Of course, there may be good pragmatic reasons in certain contexts for
> treating a school district or precinct as a physical object - but be
careful
> that you don't assume it is a permanent role or a primary role for that
> physical object in other contexts, or that it is detectable by some agent
> through means other than accessing the defining source in cyberspace.
>
> Hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barkmeyer, Edward J [mailto:edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:29 AM
> To: Hans Polzer; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> Hans/Andries,
>
> I think I should correct what I said. It seems to me that the issue is
not
> so much what a 'physical reality' is, but rather what a 'school district'
> is.
>
> It seems that Andries thinks a school district, and perhaps a country, is
a
> plot of land that is a part of the surface of the earth. And in that
sense,
> it is surely a physical reality. But I would define 'school district' as
a
> political entity that is partly defined by reference to a plot of land,
the
> other part being the notion of a jurisdiction and the purpose of the
> jurisdiction. A political entity is not essentially physical. I would say
> further that this political entity might be the kind of 'augmented
reality'
> that Hans talks about human society creating -- a mixture of physical and
> abstract concepts. And I would say that 'countries' are indeed the same
> general kind of thing, as Andries implies.
>
> No one disputes that things like school districts are realities. The sole
> issue here is the nature of the upper ontology that leads to classifying
> them. And that is largely a matter of philosophical commitments (and
> knowledge engineering principles). Hans is suggesting a part of one.
>
> I don't personally think the nature of the boundaries of a plot of land
have
> much to do with its essence. The boundary is not the imaginary line; it
is
> it is a physical property of the plot of land, in much the same way that a
> table has an edge. It can be "sensed". Ancient land boundaries might be
> marked by streams or particular rocks or by a sighting between two trees.
We
> now specify plots of land using physical measurements and logical
> coordinates that are based on physical reference points,but we are just
> using this new set of sensory enhancement technologies to sense the
> boundary. If we need to build a fence, we can sense exactly where it
should
> be placed -- the boundary is not an abstraction. But that is my preferred
> ontology. Hans and Andries have their own.
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems
> Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Office: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
> ________________________________________
> From: Hans Polzer [hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:55 PM
> To: Barkmeyer, Edward J; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> Ed,
>
> You surmise correctly that my definition of physical reality is that which
> is capable of being sensed through physical phenomenology (but not just by
> our five senses). I make this distinction from conceptual reality, such
as
> school districts, property lines (which may have physical surrogates, such
> as fences, walls, etc.), because in the world of systems I was involved
with
> there was a tendency to try to rely on physical sensors (e.g., radars,
> optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form a "picture" of reality for
the
> purpose of understanding and then acting on that reality to achieve a
> desired outcome. The problem is that society/institutions have created
> important aspects of reality that are not detectable through such
> phenomenology ( e.g., radar, optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form
a
> "picture" of reality for the purpose of understanding and then acting on
> that reality to achieve a desired outcome. The problem is that
> society/institutions have created important aspects of reality that are
not
> detectable through such phenomenology. Therefore, systems must access
other
> data sources (i.e., not physical sensors) to form a picture of reality
that
> is complete enough for their purposes. This is the drive behind recent
> efforts to create "augmented reality" apps that allow information
available
> only in cyberspace to be superimposed on views of physical reality using
> computer generated graphics. Examples include displaying historical
> information about a building or site that one might be looking at through
a
> camera viewfinder, or who the current owner might be. Note that this
> technology can also be used to make physical reality more visible than it
> might otherwise be, such as displaying underground utilities or the soil
> composition.
>
> The key point here is that human society (typically via institutions)
> creates realities that are not detectable through phenomenology/sensors.
In
> the past this conceptual reality was relatively private, recorded on
paper,
> and difficult to access by the general public. The internet revolution has
> increasingly made this reality more broadly accessible - and perhaps more
> frighteningly - more controllable/changeable over a network connection
> (think Identity Theft, for example). Of course, the internet revolution is
> also making physical reality more broadly accessible, and in some cases,
> changeable - also potentially frightening (think Stuxnet).
>
> Andries,
>
> Yes, the wall or fence of a piece of property is a physically detectable
> boundary - but you can't tell from the physics of the wall or fence what
the
> boundary represents, or even if it is a boundary in a particular
conceptual
> reality (walls and fences are built for all kinds of reasons and may not
> represent current conceptual realities of, say, property lines or the
> perimeter of a planned garden). One of the key issues here is that while
> some conceptual realities are detectable in physical reality through
> surrogates such as fences and walls, any given physical reality may
comprise
> (must comprise??) multiple conceptual realities, typically in different
> contexts. A piece of property may be part of a school district, it may be
> playground, part of a watershed, a voting precinct/ward, a bus route stop,
a
> wildlife habitat, a terrorist target, etc., all simultaneously. Which of
> these is operative depends on the context of whoever/whatever is
referencing
> that particular piece of property. If one attempts to associate a
particular
> piece of property in physical space with any one of these conceptual
> realities exclusively (which may information systems strive to do), there
> will be an interoperability problem with systems that reference that same
> piece of property to a different conceptual reality and associated
context.
> Typically such problems are resolved by recourse to some "context-neutral"
> frame of reference, such as GPS coordinates that both system use to
> determine whether they are talking about the same piece of property or
not.
> But "context-neutral" is in quotes for a reason. I'll note in passing that
> the Space Shuttle has three different definitions of altitude that it uses
> depending in its operating context - distance from the center of the earth
> (for orbital operations), elevation above mean sea level (for ascent and
> re-entry operations), and elevation above ground/surface (for landing). No
> word on what would happen if the Space Shuttle were to take off/land on a
> body other than the planet earth. The implicit assumption of earth-only
> contexts are likely to be pervasive throughout the Shuttle systems.
>
> Hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:00 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
>
>
> Andries van Renssen wrote:
>
>> Hans,
>> You state that things that have boundaries that cannot be detected by
>> physical means, such as a 'school district', are conceptual realities
>> and not physical realities.
>> How do you know that a school district is a reality and not only an
>> idea? I assume, because you can point to such a district in the real
>>
> physical world.
>
>> Your argument is that the boundaries are not physical phenomena, but
>> they are defined by human decision or agreement only.
>> I understand that, and I agree that such boundaries are not measurable
>> physical objects, but the area's within such 'boundaries by agreement'
>> are nevertheless physical. (and it might even be possible to point to
>> the boundaries in physical reality, because we know where the
>> boundaries
>>
> are).
>
>> Otherwise countries and yards would not be physical either, because
>> the boundary of my yard is contractually defined and there is no
>> physical boundary with my neighbor's yard; and a wall would be
>> physical, but the left hand part of the wall would not be physical??
>> That sounds as odd consequences.
>>
>> Therefore, I think that such things are physical objects (or roles of
>> physical objects), which boundaries are defined by human decisions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andries
>>
>>
>
> It seems to me that this is an argument about the denotation of an
undefined
> term. The problem here is whether 'physical reality' means "something
that
> can be sensed with one of the five senses", which I took to be Hans'
> definition, or not. If 'physical reality' has that definition, a 'school
> district' is not a 'physical reality', whatever else it might be. Andries
> has a different definition for 'physical reality', but he has not stated
it.
> So we cannot consider whether 'school district' satisfies it.
>
> I am simply applying Kilov's Razor: "I will not agree with anything you
say
> unless you define your terms."
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
>>> Verzonden: maandag 10 september 2012 20:46
>>> Aan: '[ontolog-forum] '
>>> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>>
>>> On Thu, September 6, 2012 19:58, Hans Polzer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> .... I've made note of
>>>> this issue in past emails to this forum regarding the notion of
>>>> "conceptual reality" being distinct from physical reality. A school
>>>> district or
>>>>
>>>>
>>> police
>>>
>>>
>>>> precinct doesn't exist in physical reality - there are no physical
>>>> phenomenologies that can be used to "detect" or "sense" such an
>>>>
>>>>
>>> object.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sure, such a conceptual object can be mapped to some geospatial
>>>>
>>>>
>>> extent -
>>>
>>>
>>>> although some "districts" might not be geospatial at all - but
>>>>
>>>>
>>> evidence
>>>
>>>
>>>> for its existence is manifest only on paper (or cyberspace), and can
>>>> be changed on a (institutional) whim. It is a creation of society,
>>>> and no
>>>>
>>>>
>>> physical
>>>
>>>
>>>> entity is directly affected or modified in any way by its creation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well stated.
>>>
>>> -- doug foxvog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries
>>>>
>>>>
>>> van
>>>
>>>
>>>> Renssen
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:40 PM
>>>> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>>>
>>>> Doug,
>>>>
>>>> Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical
>>>>
>>>>
>>> area on
>>>
>>>
>>>> earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.
>>>> Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in
>>>>
>>>>
>>> themselves, but
>>>
>>>
>>>> they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> although
>>>
>>>
>>>> always in different (individual) relations.
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
>>>> relation.
>>>>
>>>> The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a
>>>> kind
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation
>>>> thing> <classification
>>>> of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are
>>>> different.
>>>> In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for
>>>> the first kind of relation.
>>>> Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
>>>> classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. Kinds
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be'
>>>>
>>>>
>>> generalized, by
>>>
>>>
>>>> being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).
>>>> Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic
>>>>
>>>>
>>> distinction.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|