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: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 02:49:27 -0400
Message-id: <1a9c1e69822f41a8a81a79d60a93baf6.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, October 3, 2012 08:06, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> Doug,
> I try to understand your concept 'conceptual reality', which you
> distinguished from 'physical reality'.    (01)

I think that was Hans, but i'll bite.    (02)

> Please clarify that.
> How does 'conceptual reality' relate to the concept 'role'?    (03)

Something can play a role in a 'conceptual reality'.  Similarly a
conceptual reality can play a role in some event.    (04)

> Is a 'conceptual reality' an 'imaginary physical thing'? or is it a
> 'possible physical thing' or is it a 'mental reality'?    (05)

Hans used the term to refer to spatially defined boundaries.
Such things would be a 'mental reality'.  It would also include
contracts, bank (or leave) accounts, songs (as conceptual works),
mental models, and ontologies.    (06)

> Do conceptual realities obey the laws of physics or other laws?    (07)

Being non-physical, no.  The operation of an account would be
required to follow a human law.  Contracts can be illegal, which
voids the contract.  It might be evidence that one of its creators
violated a law.    (08)

> 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.    (09)

I assume that by 'person', you mean 'human being' -- not the role of
'legal person'.    (010)

-- doug    (011)

> With kind regards,
> Andries
>
>> -----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
>>
>
>    (012)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)

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