ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in battle for t

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Hans Polzer" <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:02:16 -0400
Message-id: <01d201ce8d89$9a14e660$ce3eb320$@verizon.net>
Ed,     (01)

A few responses are embedded below:    (02)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:37 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in battle for 
the cloud    (03)

Hans,    (04)

You wrote:    (05)

> At least we can describe the institutional and domain contexts for the 
> systems that interact over the network, and do so explicitly and in a 
> network accessible fashion - as opposed to leaving context implicit, 
> which so much of this discussion forum tends to do.    (06)

So, when we publish our "product data sheet ontology", the institutional and 
domain context will be that it was published by NIST in 2013, based on some 
communications with organizations in the "process plant" industries (chemicals, 
refineries, food products).  Is that sufficient 'context'?  Does it tell you 
what the viewpoint is?  I can tell you that it doesn't, because part of our 
problem was accommodating multiple viewpoints in that space:  design engineer, 
engineering software supplier, plant builder, equipment vendor, plant operator. 
 So, of course, the ontology supports all of them not equally badly, and 
matches none of them.  It takes months to get a sense of the differences in 
viewpoints, because the people who hold them only tell you how they see the 
space, do you (sooner or later) see the conflicts, but you have to tease out 
the "principles" involved in their views.    (07)

HP: generally a little context goes a long way (as opposed to no explicit 
context representation at all). But I agree that in many situations more 
detailed and extensive context representation may be required for the purposes 
of the interaction.    (08)

> Over time, people/organizations will adopt common context dimensional 
> descriptions that they find are a close match to their own needs, 
> rather than defining/assuming their own - which is effectively what 
> they do today because there generally aren't many that are 
> explicitly/openly available.    (09)

In my experience, people/organizations will adopt specifications, software and 
practices that they find are a close match to their needs.  They will 
simultaneously insist that their viewpoint and context are special in ways that 
are their own.  Consultants are always amused by companies carefully guarding 
business, engineering, manufacturing practices that they believe are unique to 
them and are the basis for their competitive edge, when many organizations, 
including some of their competitors, do exactly the same things.  In so many 
words, one does not adopt someone else's context, unless the purpose is to be 
acquired or to be a long-term partner.   Parties may, however, agree that they 
have a large overlap in their viewpoints.  But they usually find that out by 
discussion and exploration of mutual interests.    (010)

HP: parties generally do not adopt all of someone else's context, but they do 
adopt a dominant player's or industry consensus on important context elements.    (011)

> When e-retailers adopt the Amazon framework and business model to sell 
> their stuff on the Internet,    (012)

They are adopting the Amazon practices that they expect will work well for 
their "unique" application.    (013)

HP: Exactly! And Amazon was wise to allow some level of "uniqueness" in their 
partner's business model. But they control the basic cataloging and 
transactional framework.    (014)

> they effectively adopt the Amazon model for the context dimensions of 
> selling certain types of items by and to certain types of sellers and 
> buyers and within certain ranges of governmental legal and financial 
> regulatory frameworks (but not outside those types and ranges).    (015)

The "context dimensions"?  I am sure they would tell you their "context" is a 
different marketplace, in which they hope not to find Amazon as a competitor.  
Further, they will tell you that their business experience has taught them much 
more about how to organize their content and their customer support for their 
target market than an overgrown bookseller will ever learn.  They may adopt the 
Amazon viewpoint on Internet sales, yes, but they will specialize the practices 
for their context, and introduce their own practices for customer support 
beyond the point of sale.    (016)

> A similar phenomena is occurring in the domain of smartphone 
> providers, cell service providers, and smartphone data services. And 
> there is a small overlap between these two context domains. I'm 
> suggesting we should promote enabling this type of evolutionary 
> process for increasingly broad and explicit representation of contexts in 
>overlapping domains.    (017)

What do you see as the "explicit representation of context" here?  I see 
adoption of a common viewpoint with respect to certain practices, and I don't 
doubt that that viewpoint is described in text.  Is that what you mean by 
"explicit representation" and "context"?    (018)

HP: This is still an emerging area and only some basic context dimensions are 
represented, like whether a smartphone is "locked" to specific cell service 
provider or not, and which one, if it is. Other context elements are whether 
the interaction is mediated by the cell service provider, or done via some 
other network connection (such as a Wi-Fi connection or Bluetooth). Different 
smartphone families will connect to a variety of email providers and social 
network providers, based on user provided context parameters.    (019)

> And ontologies should be explicit with regard to such context 
> assumptions    (020)

I.e., My ontology assumes you are selling smartphone services?  Or my ontology 
assumes you are using the Amazon approach to Internet sales?    (021)

Assuming that you could tag each of those with a URI that refers to some 
natural language publication on the practice, is that what you mean by 
"explicit representation of context"?  I think you will find that many 
published OWL models do in fact point to such publications, in annotations, of 
course.  And I suppose one could formalize those to pointers to "Dublin core" 
objects -- formal metadata.    (022)

HP: yes, but I would push for more than a reference to some natural language 
publication (although that's better than nothing)
Which leads me to a different question:  Is what you have in mind just formal 
metadata for ontologies?    (023)

> they make - even if they don't include them all because they aren't 
> aware they are making them or consider them "safe to ignore", and even 
> if there isn't broad agreement on how to represent context. Not being 
> able to understand some ontology's context assumptions, or finding 
> them significantly incomplete, should be an important clue as to the 
> ontology's utility/applicability to one's own perceived contexts and 
>associated scope.    (024)

Yes.  So you are talking about providing enough annotations to make some part 
of your context somewhat clear to human readers?  That is not at all what I 
understood by "explicit representation of context".  I (foolishly) assumed that 
you were talking about some formal specification that might enable a tool to 
reason whether the context of an off-the-shelf ontology would be consistent 
with the "formal representation of target context" of a would-be user.    (025)

HP: you were not foolish in your assumption. Although human readability is a 
desirable attribute of context representation, I would certainly advocate a 
formal specification that might enable a tool to reason about the consistency 
of target contexts with internal context assumptions.    (026)

> The context and domain/capability scope dimensions in the NCOIC SCOPE 
> model are a starting point for systems/organizations interacting over 
> network connections, derived from actual context/scope mismatches 
> encountered on a fairly broad range of real systems.    (027)

In a narrow domain in which the meaning of "scope" terms is presumably 
well-defined.    (028)

HP: If you look at SCOPE you will find that the scope dimensions are quite 
broad and allow for extensible "domain-dependent" scope dimensions, much like 
micro-theories in some ontologies. The latter scope dimensions tend to be more 
precisely defined and in domain-specific terms. But broad scope dimensions can 
also be fairly well defined, such as whether a context is multi-national or 
completely within a single nation's sphere (or a more constrained 
jurisdiction), assuming we can agree on what constitutes a "nation".    (029)

-Ed    (030)

"There is nothing so pernicious to large-scale designs as the seductiveness of 
simple examples."
  -- Selden Stewart    (031)

HP: my examples were intended to be illustrative and not misleadingly simple - 
because they aren't simple when examined closely. Again, if you look at SCOPE, 
I doubt you will find it "simple". The more common complaint is that it is 
overly complex - and getting more so. But then again, so are the real world 
interactions we and our systems are increasingly exposed to. Saying that a 
little context goes a long way isn't the same thing as saying a little context 
is all you ever need.    (032)

>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum- 
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in 
> battle for the cloud
>
> Hans,
>
> I think we can all agree. All models are wrong.  Every model is made 
> from some viewpoint that determines what is important and what is 
> unimportant to the viewer.  That which is unimportant will be omitted 
> or described inaccurately or downright incorrectly.  The factorization 
> of the modeled world itself depends in part on the viewpoint.  There 
> is a an IEEE standard -- IEEE 1471, last revised long about 2000 -- 
> that describes these ideas, and their consequences for concept architectures 
>and model integration.
>
> Every ontology is a model.  It expresses a microtheory that 
> corresponds to the viewpoint from which it is created.  The upper 
> ontology folk have a somewhat different view from that of IEEE 1471, 
> in that they see the lower microtheories being informed by a 
> consistent upper ontology during their development, which avoids 
> certain viewpoint pitfalls, whilst enforcing the "context" of the 
> upper ontology and its commitments (witting and unwitting).  But we 
> also see that having a common upper ontology doesn't necessarily lead 
> to consistent microtheories for human physiology, precisely because of 
> differences in viewpoint on specific physical structures that are not 
>addressed more than generally in the upper ontology.
>
> The problem is that no one has yet figured out how to document 
> viewpoint or context effectively.  It comes down to "how we were 
> thinking when we made the model".  If you are aware of other views of 
> the same space when you make the model, you may document what you see 
> as the principal differences and commonalities, but you can only do 
> that for other viewpoints that you have some understanding of.  I have 
> referred before to Hyunbo Cho's "unknown knowledge" oxymoron, which 
> refers to assumptions that you are not even aware that you are employing.
>
> So, unless you have some newly enlightening proposal for "context 
> documentation", there is not much point in rhapsodizing on this theme.  
> We all agree that "context" is why microtheories for a domain can be 
> self- consistent but mutually inconsistent and still useful to their 
> authors.  But no one knows how to document "context".  The description 
> of the context for a microtheory will be made by the author and thus 
> limited to his understanding of possible viewpoints on the domain -- 
> "the context for the context" (which sounds a bit like Nietzsche, but it is 
>more like "turtles all the way down").
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                     Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration 
> Division, Engineering Laboratory
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8260            Work:   +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260         Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,  and 
> have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum- 
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:50 PM
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in 
> > battle for the cloud
> >
> > Until you start including a description of the context(s) within 
> > which the representation of entities applies, you won't get very 
> > far. Every legacy system has an assumed context and scope for what 
> > it does, and a specific perspective on that context, and specific 
> > frames of reference used to describe the relevant "world" from its 
> > perspective. That's why we have a "tangled mess".
> >
> > By the way, all systems are legacy systems - including the one you 
> > are designing this moment (from the perspective of the designer of 
> > the next
> > system) - and no one will ever get the resources to redesign and 
> > reimplement all systems that do everything for everyone's purposes:
> > live with it! Nothing operationally useful gets built without 
> > constrained scope, time, and resources, which limits the n-space of 
> > context ranges it can practically address.
> >
> > All attempts to define entities and relations in a context 
> > free/neutral manner as a solution to interoperability are doomed to 
> > have limited validity (i.e., to those systems/applications that 
> > share their implicit context/scope assumptions). Only when we start 
> > being explicit about our context and scope assumptions within which 
> > we are describing entities and relationships will we be able to 
> > semi-reliably share meaning between arbitrary systems. So the first 
> > order of business should be an ontology for describing context and 
> > scope
> assumptions.
> >
> > Hans
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum- 
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:35 PM
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in 
> > battle for the cloud
> >
> > On 7/27/13 10:06 AM, deddy wrote:
> > > Michael -
> > >
> > >> your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-) 
> > >> Yes, if all you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW 
> > >> technologies are not a magic bullet for solving it.
> > >>
> > > Welcome to the world of legacy systems.
> >
> > By "legacy systems" you mean a subjective tangled mess rife with 
> > contextual fluidity?
> >
> > >
> > > I hope against hope that somewhere in the SW stack of tools there 
> > > just might be something to help with understanding legacy systems.
> >
> > Yes, they help since "meaning" is critical to "understanding" anything.
> > Thus, you can map out a tangled mess, rife with contextual fluidity, 
> > by decomposing the aforementioned mess into:
> >
> > 1. entities
> > 2. entity relationships
> > 3. entity relationship roles
> > 4. entity relations .
> >
> > You can achieve the above with computer and human oriented languages.
> > >
> > > It's a very SMALL hope.
> >
> > I have big hopes, the challenge lies in getting everyone to look at 
> > the task like they would a jigsaw puzzle game where every resource 
> > is a puzzle-piece, as exemplified by the World Wide Web.
> >
> > >
> > > What I do see is SW creating yet another tangled layer of 
> > > undocumented,
> > poorly understood systems.
> >
> > Of course not.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been attending monthly MIT SW meetings for 4+ years.  Once, 
> > > by chance, I did catch TBL himself saying to the audience that 
> > > "Semantic Web" was a clever marketing label, but that in reality, 
> > > "linked data" would
> > be a more appropriate description since there really isn't anything 
> > special about semantics in the SW.
> >
> > Hmm..
> >
> > I think TimBL was trying to unravel the obvious fact that the Web he 
> > envisioned was a read-write global graph comprised of:
> >
> > 1. entities -- things
> > 2. entity relationships -- statements describing things 3. entity 
> > roles -- relationship roles e.g., subject, predicate, and object 4.
> > entity relations -- sets of relationships scoped to common 
> > predicates 5. relation semantics -- exploitation of First-order 
> > logic as the foundation
> for relation semantics.
> >
> > In the context of the World Wide Web, HTTP URIs would serve as the 
> > denotation (naming) mechanism for the items above.
> >
> > The World Wide Web was always about a global entity relationship 
> > graph [1] where humans and machines would be able to comprehend 
> > entity relationship semantics [2]. Basically, the fidelity or entity 
> > relationship semantics of this global entity relationship graph 
> > would evolve (continuously) over time via crowd-sourcing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As you may have noticed, my passion is for a process—tool 
> > > assisted, but requiring human knowledge at the beginnings —to 
> > > extract & make
> > formal the MENSA_FL --> MEssage Notify Stop Action Flag --> "a 
> > collection of dunning flags"
> > > process.
> >
> > We (certainly I) just need to find the right way to articulate that 
> > we (You and
> > I) are on the same page. At the top of this response, what I 
> > outlined are steps that fall into your "beginnings" view point i.e., 
> > that domain experts and systems analysts MUST be key participants in 
> > the process. That's totally different from the typical pattern where 
> > programmers (short on domain expertise and industry experience) 
> > generally make things up as they experiment and play with the latest 
> > and greatest programming language, where the real focus is parsing 
> > capabilities, language idioms, and data representation formats etc..
> >
> > To conclude, we just need to align our own entity relationship 
> > semantics as we discuss these matters, en route to common 
> > understanding  :-)
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > [1] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- Proof that Relationship Semantics & 
> > Linked Data were part of original World Wide Web design and proposal 
> > [2] http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Illustrating the loose-coupling of 
> > Identifiers (e.g., URIs), Structured Data, and Logic exemplified by 
> > Web Architecture [3] http://slidesha.re/18CtxGK -- Blogic 
> > Presentation by
> Pat Hayes.
> >
> >
> > Kingsley
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does "dunning" have a German meaning?  It means the process to 
> > > send someone a series of (increasingly firm) bills to collect a debt.  
>R.G.
> > > Dun was an early (1840s) credit rating business here in the States 
> > > &
> > eventually merged to become Dun & Bradstreet, which survives to this day.
> > >
> > > ______________________
> > > David Eddy
> > > Babson Park, MA
> > > 781-455-0949
> > >
> > >
> > >>   -------Original Message-------
> > >>   From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>   To: [ontolog-forum]  <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>   Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets 
> > >> match in
> > battle for the cloud
> > >>   Sent: 2013-07-27 08:50
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>   Hello David,
> > >>
> > >>   your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-) 
> > >> Yes, if
> > all
> > >>   you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW technologies 
> > >> are not a
> > magic
> > >>   bullet for solving it.
> > >>
> > >>   Regards,
> > >>
> > >>   Michael Brunnbauer
> > >>
> > >>   On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:17AM -0400, David Eddy wrote:
> > >>   > Michael -
> > >>   >
> > >>   > On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> > >>   >
> > >>   > > distributed in the heads of two experts for one or the 
> > >> other
> system.
> > >>   >
> > >>   > Let us assume the experts are not readily available...
> > >>   >
> > >>   > - I'm too green to formulate a coherent question
> > >>   >
> > >>   > - experts do not like to be pestered by clueless newbie questions
> > >>   >
> > >>   > - experts are simply too busy
> > >>   >
> > >>   >
> > >>   > The "knowledge" that has trickled down to me is as most 
> > >> technical
> > documentation severely stripped of useful
> > >>   > context & content.
> > >>   >
> > >>   >
> > >>   >
> > >>   >
> > >>   > > once you have discovered that M0760 and MENSA-FL are the same
> > >>   >
> > >>   > That's the hard part... how are M0760 & MENSA-FL discovered 
> > >> to be
> > the same?
> > >>   >
> > >>   > Remember, we're looking at a data structure with 1700 data 
> > >> elements & analysts/programmers are pawing over
> > > this stuff on a regular basis.
> > >>   >
> > >>   > In theory there should be documentation... but situations 
> > >> like this typically come down to: "the code is the
> > > documentation."
> > >>   >
> > >>   > - David
> > >>   >
> > >>
> > >>   >
> > >>   >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > >>   > 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
> > >>   >
> > >>
> > >>   --
> > >>   ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> > >>   ++  netEstate GmbH
> > >>   ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> > >>   ++  81379 München
> > >>   ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> > >>   ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> > >>   ++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>   ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> > >>   ++
> > >>   ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> > >>   ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> > >>   ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> > >>   ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > >>   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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
>    (033)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (034)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (035)

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