Doug,
I try to understand your concept 'conceptual reality', which you distinguished
from 'physical reality'. Please clarify that.
How does 'conceptual reality' relate to the concept 'role'?
Is a 'conceptual reality' an 'imaginary physical thing'? or is it a 'possible
physical thing' or is it a 'mental reality'?
Do conceptual realities obey the laws of physics or other laws? (01)
Fyi, for me 'person' is not a role. But customer, student, patient, performer,
enabler, etc. are roles, because they are extrinsic
aspects which existence depend on a relation with some other role player. (02)
With kind regards,
Andries (03)
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
> doug foxvog
> Verzonden: donderdag 27 september 2012 23:35
> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> On Thu, September 27, 2012 08:20, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> > Hans,
> > The concept 'boundary' is a kind of role. Such a role can be played by a
> > physical object.
> > Such a role playing physical object can have various roles simultaneously.
> > You make a distinction between a physical object and (its?) multiple
> > 'conceptual realities'. Your concept called 'conceptual
> > reality' seem to be more or less equivalent to the concept 'role' or its
> > subtype 'usage'. Whereas your use of the concept
> > 'surrogate' seem to be equivalent with the relation type <can play a role
> > as a> between role player and played role.
> > Other people have created similar concepts, called 'functional physical
> > object' or just 'functional object' or 'functional location'
> > (e.g. in the SAP system) with a similar purpose.
> > In my view roles and a taxonomy of kinds of roles should be used instead.
> > When we distinguish between the object and its roles as two different
> > things, then there is no need to talk about a different object
> > for each role, but about different roles played by one role player.
> > Then the role playing object is not dependent on the view or context, but
> > some roles (and accompanying relations) are only relevant
> > for particular views and contexts whereas the role player is relevant for
> > all.
>
> Would you then consider an Animal or a Human as being a role of that
> animal's body?
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
> >> Hans Polzer
> >> Verzonden: woensdag 26 september 2012 2:55
> >> Aan: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> >> Onderwerp: 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|