ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Richard Dapoigny <richard.dapoigny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:56:36 +0100
Message-id: <50CB05E4.1050604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le 14/12/2012 07:18, Pat Hayes a écrit :
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Richard Dapoigny wrote:
>
>> Le 13/12/2012 18:19, Alexander Titov a écrit :
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> am I right to understand this:
>>>
>>>> individuals as entities having no instance(s)
>>> as
>>>
>>> individuals as entities which don't (could not) have members? can we use 
>'instance of' as synonym to 'member of'?
>>>
>>> In addition, how do you understand 'entity'? and 'instance' (in case I am 
>wrong in my assumption above)?
>>>
>>> Alex
>> Alex, don't confuse instances and member of. The last one has long been 
>debated and refers to part-whole relations.
> ???  Member of is the classical name for the (inverse of the) relation 
>between a set and something in that set. This is (a) not even remotely 
>debateable and (b) nothing whatever to do with part/whole relations.
Member_of can be considered as a part-whole relation as long as we 
consider collections (which is NOT a mereological relation as far as I 
know) and has been analyzed by several authors (see e.g., G. Guizzardi, 
Representing Collectives and Their Members in UML Conceptual Models: An 
Ontological Analysis, Procs. of the Entity-Relationship International 
Conference (ER 2010), LNCS 6413, 2010, pp. 265--274, C.M. Keet, A. 
Artale, Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole 
relations, Applied Ontology, 3 (1--2), (2008) 91--110). It seems to me 
that confusing classes with sets has a logical bias...    (01)


>   AFAIK, the part/whole relationshiop described by mereology is never 
>referred to using "member" or any grammatical variation. Also, "member" is 
>virtually synonymous with "instance", if one identifies classes as sets (which 
>is commonly, though not universally, done.)
>
>> We may have this relation between individuals.
>> Entity can be seen as some classes (here leaf classes) and instance refers 
>either as the ":" relation if we are in a typed framework (e.g., object 
>Oriented) or as teh "instanceOf" relation in first order theories.
> And what *is* that "instanceOf" relation? Do you mean the relationship of an 
>entity to a set containing it, or to a class of which it is a member? Or a 
>concept which it instantiates? Or something else?
>
> Pat
>
>
>> Richard
>>
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg>      Richard Dapoigny        13 December 
>2012 16:55
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I see that the debate about identification of individuals is far from 
>being consensual.
>>>> However, let us first (try to) agree of some fixed points as we say in 
>mathematics.
>>>> A usual definition is to see individuals as entities having no 
>instance(s). Is there some agreement about this first definition?
>>>> This should help to better characterize the link between ontologies and 
>individuals.
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 13/12/2012 16:14, Amanda Vizedom a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> And the wounded skies above say
>>>> it's much too much too late.
>>>> Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg>      Amanda Vizedom  13 December 2012 15:14
>>>>
>>>> Hans, et al,
>>>>
>>>> Info Systems might not generally make that distinction, but Ontologies, 
>and deployed ontology-based systems can, should, and often do.
>>>>
>>>> The unique name of an individual within an ontology is generally 
>artificial, in order to guarantee uniqueness. Namespaces, Microtheories, and 
>other mechanisms supporting ontology modularity serve to extend that 
>uniqueness beyond the bounds of the original ontology or module.  This is 
>quite separate from any identifier used for the individual in any other 
>system. Best practice IME is to map to identifier systems explicitly, using 
>specific mapping predicates (for example, "socialSecurityNumber," "legalName," 
>"vehicleIdentityNumber," "serialNumber," "XYZemployeeID"); those predicates 
>can and should themselves be defined with explicit reference to the context in 
>which they apply or authority which issues and uses them. Note, also, that 
>this approach is essentially neutral to metaphysical questions about the 
>individual/class distinction, as identifiers can be, and often are, treated as 
>contextual for any thing in the ontology, and mapping identifiers for classes 
>is often done in precisely the same way, using specific mapping predicates 
>whose context/authority is made explicit (for example, "modelNumber," 
>"cHEBIName," etc.).
>>>>
>>>> This approach also eases things in deployed systems that are used to track 
>(and perhaps eventually unify/identify) initially unidentified things using 
>partial information.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Amanda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg>      Hans Polzer     13 December 2012 14:42
>>>> Matthew,
>>>>   
>>>> Great comments. Some remarks embedded below:
>>>>   
>>>> Hans
>>>>   
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:23 AM
>>>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>>>>   
>>>> Dear Hans,
>>>>   
>>>> You seem to be approaching this from a 3D perspective.
>>>>   
>>>> I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific 
>roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers 
>of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have 
>these same roles.
>>>>   
>>>> MW: From a 4D perspective the identifiers are of the state of individual 
>that is playing the role, rather than the individual for the whole of its 
>life. For example, a Passport No. or a Driving License No only identifies 
>particular states, not the person for the whole of their lives.
>>>> HP: Collective contexts have duration scope, so I do take a 4D perspective
>>>> Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t have a 
>specific context and perspective associated with them?
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Sometimes identifiers are created with that purpose, a birth 
>certificate number for example.
>>>> HP: But my point was that even birth certificates have a particular 
>institutional context – and can get lost or destroyed. They don’t represent a 
>context-free identity for a person and are typically not coupled directly to a 
>person biometrically and not all have numbers. I don’t know of any system that 
>uses birth certificate numbers as identifiers for people.
>>>>   
>>>> That was why I made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. 
>By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although 
>evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty 
>good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual 
>identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers 
>are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those 
>laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or 
>under the aegis of a specific institution?
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Well this is a different point. The nice thing about unique 
>identifiers is how many of them any individual can have. Being unique only 
>means that within that context the identifier is managed to only refer to one 
>thing. It does not prevent there being other unique identifiers for the same 
>thing, and it does not prevent different identifiers for the same thing using 
>the same scheme (though you might attempt that). For example, a person might 
>try to obtain more than one Social Security Number so they can  commit benefit 
>fraud.
>>>>   
>>>> The point is that all identities
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Identity is different from identifier…
>>>> HP: Correct! But information systems generally don’t make that distinction 
>because the only way they have of distinguishing among individuals is through 
>identifiers – which have context, usually implicit and overlooked. And one 
>purpose of the “entity primacy” principle is to make developers explicitly 
>aware of that distinction so that they don’t mistake the identifiers they are 
>using for individuals for the identity of those individuals (which is their 
>own and inherent in their existence in some reality). The best we can do is to 
>get socio-political agreement on some “near-innate” identifier for 
>individuals, such as VINS for motor vehicles intended for use on public roads 
>and MAC addresses for Ethernet devices.  Such identifiers are useful for 
>information sharing interoperability among diverse contexts about the same 
>individuals. But we don’t really have such an identifier for people (yet). 
>Maybe some “superDNS” identifier certificate issued independently of 
>national/local jurisdiction before birth to all people (like VINs) will be 
>brought about thanks to the Internet, but I’m not holding my breath. Or maybe 
>some biometric will be found that can serve as this “near-innate” identifier 
>on the network. And we need to be vigilant and remember that even these 
>identifiers are not the same as identity and that the individuals may have 
>other identifiers in other contexts.
>>>>   
>>>> Regards
>>>>   
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information  Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>>>   
>>>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England 
>and Wales No. 6632177.
>>>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, 
>Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg>      Matthew West    13 December 2012 10:22
>>>> Dear Hans,
>>>>   
>>>> You seem to be approaching this from a 3D perspective.
>>>>   
>>>> I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific 
>roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers 
>of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have 
>these same roles.
>>>>   
>>>> MW: From a 4D perspective the identifiers are of the state of individual 
>that is playing the role, rather than the individual for the whole of its 
>life. For example, a Passport No. or a Driving License No only identifies 
>particular states, not the person for the whole of their lives.
>>>>   
>>>> Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t have a 
>specific context and perspective associated with them?
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Sometimes identifiers are created with that purpose, a birth 
>certificate number for example.
>>>>   
>>>> That was why I made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. 
>By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although 
>evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty 
>good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual 
>identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers 
>are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those 
>laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or 
>under the aegis of a specific institution?
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Well this is a different point. The nice thing about unique 
>identifiers is how many of them any individual can have. Being unique only 
>means that within that context the identifier is managed to only refer to one 
>thing. It does not prevent there being other unique identifiers for the same 
>thing, and it does not prevent different identifiers for the same thing using 
>the same scheme (though you might attempt that). For example, a person might 
>try to obtain more than one Social Security Number so they can  commit benefit 
>fraud.
>>>>   
>>>> The point is that all identities
>>>>   
>>>> MW: Identity is different from identifier…
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> Regards
>>>>   
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information  Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>>>   
>>>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England 
>and Wales No. 6632177.
>>>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, 
>Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg>      Hans Polzer     12 December 2012 23:04
>>>> Matthew,
>>>>   
>>>> I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific 
>roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers 
>of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have 
>these same roles. Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t 
>have a specific context and perspective associated with them? That was why I 
>made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. By the way, DNA is 
>not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although evolution has 
>endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty good job. 
>Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual 
>identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers 
>are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those 
>laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or 
>under the aegis of a specific institution?
>>>>   
>>>> The point is that all identities of individuals, people or otherwise, that 
>we use today have a specific and scope-limited institutional/collective 
>context, whether they be names, serial numbers, telephone numbers, MAC 
>addresses, IP addresses, email addresses, account numbers, URLs, VINs, or 
>anything else. This is why we included the “entity primacy” principle in the 
>net-centric principles we developed for NCOIC. Basically, the identity of 
>anything is independent of any collective context and has primacy over any 
>identity that any collective context might apply/assign to that entity. We 
>recognize that entities generally don’t have obvious innate identities, per 
>the discussion above. But we included the entity primacy principle to 
>underscore the fact that any “citizen of the network” or collective, such as 
>an enterprise or government, should not assume that the identity it assigns to 
>an entity is the one true identity for that individual entity. Put 
>differently, every individual entity will always have other identities in 
>other contexts, and you need to be prepared to deal with that fact for 
>whatever purposes you might interact with others about that individual entity. 
>A more pragmatic application of the principle would be that every individual 
>entity in your knowledge base should have at least two identities – the one 
>“native” to your context and one that is recognized outside your context. More 
>is often better (but not always). You can see this at work in just about any 
>“eBusiness”. Typically you have a customer id specific to the business and an 
>email address not controlled by that business. Most businesses identify their 
>employees by multiple identifiers such as “name”, “taxid (SSN in US)”, 
>“employee/badge number (not always the same)”, “email address”, or even “PC 
>UserID”. They might also assign role identifiers such as “position code”, “pay 
>grade”, “organization-id”, “project-id”, but these role identifiers are 
>typically used only to qualify the individual, not to identify the individual.
>>>>   
>>>> Hans
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:39 AM
>>>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>>>>   
>>>> Dear Hans,
>>>> I would argue that most of the different identifiers you mention refer to 
>different roles a person might play, rather than to the person themselves.
>>>>   
>>>> Regards
>>>>   
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information  Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>>>   
>>>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England 
>and Wales No. 6632177.
>>>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, 
>Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
>>>> Sent: 12 December 2012 02:20
>>>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>>>>   
>>>> Don’t forget that identifiers for individuals are grounded in 
>institutional frames of reference with context and scope. Your name is not 
>yours. Rather it typically was assigned to you by a combination of your 
>parents and whatever jurisdiction you were born in that issued your birth 
>certificate. Note that SSN is also nation and jurisdiction-specific, and 
>interestingly, is not guaranteed to be unique to you. Your driver’s license 
>number is specific to the state issuing the license. The combination of 
>nation, state, and driver’s license number represents your identity in a motor 
>vehicle operating context (assuming the nation you are operating in recognizes 
>your issuing nation/state license), and possibly in a voting context as well – 
>but not in an IRS context or Social Security context.  Passport numbers are 
>specific to people in an international travel context, and issued by the State 
>Department or similar institution in other national contexts. There are many 
>other identities for individuals (not just people) in differing contexts and 
>scope. For example, part numbers, serial numbers, model numbers, UPC codes, 
>VINs, RFID, asset number, title number, policy number, customer number, etc.
>>>>   
>>>> The important thing to recognize is that the same individual may have a 
>different individual identifier in different ontologies, and that if you want 
>interoperability across domains and contexts, you need to have a way of 
>mapping individuals from one identifier frame of reference to another, whether 
>we are talking about people, countries, elements, planets, products, 
>retailers, airline flights, airport gates, airplanes, satellites, etc. And we 
>need to recognize that there are few, if any, “inherent” or “context-free” 
>individual identities, DNA notwithstanding. Put differently, the identify of 
>an individual in a given ontology should be assumed to be specific to that 
>ontology, and any institutional/domain frames of reference and scope specified 
>for that ontology. A “best practice” would be to be explicit about such 
>institutional frames of reference and scope if and when individuals are 
>identified in some ontology.
>>>>   
>>>> Hans
>>>>   
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Dapoigny
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:00 PM
>>>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>>>>   
>>>> Le 11/12/2012 20:30, Barry Smith a écrit :
>>>> It was only some examples (of course not complete). For people I do not 
>suggest the name but rather e.g., a Social Security Number (SSN).
>>>> Richard
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> And the wounded skies above say
>>>> it's much too much too late.
>>>> Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> And the wounded skies above say
>> it's much too much too late.
>> Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.
>>
>> <richard_dapoigny.vcf>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>    (02)


-- 
And the wounded skies above say
it's much too much too late.
Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.    (03)

Attachment: richard_dapoigny.vcf
Description: Vcard


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)

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