Allow me to expand on my response to Enrico, since this is now in a public
forum. (01)
This is not a new idea. The 2004 RDF Semantics (which is still the normative
standard, until the new RDF 1.1 documents become a Recommendation early in
2014) explicitly considered the possibility of giving RDFS the extensional
semantics that Enrico is describing. This semantics (actually an RDF semantic
extension) is defined in (02)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ExtensionalDomRang (03)
and some of the inference patterns that it makes valid are listed at (04)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFSExtRules (05)
Rules ext3 and ext4 in the table given there are enough (with the transitivity
of subProperty) to support the "missing" entailments in Enrico's slides. But
notice that there are also some entailments that are valid under this semantics
that are, I think it is fair to say, definitely *not* immediately intuitive,
such as: (06)
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf aaa .
aaa rdfs:domain bbb . (07)
entail (08)
rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf aaa . (09)
We can argue about intuitions, but the main point is that RDF(S) was
deliberately designed with an intensional semantics in mind. The original RDF
model, sketched by a pre-W3C group, included the basic principle that
rdfs:Class, the class of all classes, was itself an rdfs:Class, ie that (010)
rdfs:Class rdf:type rdfs:Class . (011)
should be true. This idea, that the 'top' class is a member of itself, is
widely assumed to be intuitively obvious to people in library and
classifification sciences, and was considered obvious to mathematicians until
Russell discoverd his paradox. The basic RDF semantic construction, using the
EXT mapping to distinguish properties from their property extensions, was
adopted largely to make such axioms meaningful. Identifying properties with
property extensions would make this axiom incoherent. At first this was seen as
a necessary but purely mathematical trick; but the idea of separating the ideas
of property and class from their extensions quickly was seen to have many
advantages. (012)
First, it is simply useful to presume that properties and classes are
first-class entities which themselves can have properties, stand in
relationships to other things. and be in classes. This enables RDF to express a
variety of ideas that it would be unable to express properly if it were
restricted to the extensional view (where classes and properties are identified
with their set-theoretic extensions.) For example, in the extensional
semantics, there is only one empty class with no elements; but many
classification systems need to allow categories to be found to be empty without
being necessarily identified. More generally, two categories may happen to have
the same elements, without being considered identical (because they may have
different properties, if for no other reason.) (013)
Second, the intensional semantics is weaker in, I believe, useful ways. The
primary use of RDF is to express 'linked data' and allow ontologies witten in
RDFS and OWL to be applied to that data. This purpose is not aided by requiring
RDF(S) to derive new ontological content from other such content. The
extensional semantics imposes a variety of entailments that are unintuitive
(see above) or unnecessary, which are omitted by the intensional semantics
while it supports the key ideas of transitivity and reflexivity of the subclass
and subproperty hierarchies. This makes proofs easier to discover and
inconsistencies easier to detect. (014)
Third, the extensional semantics is not an alternative to, but an extension
(sorry about the pun) of the intensional semantics. So if you want an
"OWL-style" extensional version of RDFS, you can define it as an RDF semantic
extension, without RDF needing to be made inhospitable to other intuitions.
Which is very much in the RDF tradition of being a universal "minimal" system
that can be taken to be a foundation for a variety of interoperating
extensions. (015)
However, that said, it is kind of ironic that Enrico should bring this up now,
just when the RDF 1.1 standardization process is almost finished, and when
AFAIK no RDF user since 2004 has expressed any desire to adopt the extensional
semantics, and so the RDF 1.1 WG has decided to simply omit this material from
the RDF 1.1 documents simply in order to make them shorter and easier to read.
(See https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html for the new
version.) Of course this omission does not invalidate such an RDF semantic
extension, but it does reflect the general lack of interest in it in the RDF
community. (016)
Pat (017)
On Nov 23, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (018)
> Moving this dialog to the [ontolog-forum] list here (with Enrico and
> Pat's consent), so it becomes part of the ongoing open dialog, and
> gets captured for the benefit of the entire community and future
> reference. =ppy
>
>
>
> ---------- original message ----------
> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03
> - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear Pat,
>> I believe that there is one expected obvious meaning to the notion of
>"subClass", which corresponds to subset of the corresponding extensions if you
>see classes as sets.
>
> Yes, but RDFS (quite explicitly) does NOT see classes as sets. Of
> course, considering classes to be sets gives you the extensional
> semantics, but that is not how the RDFS data model was designed.
>
>> As a matter of facts, this is partially true in the RDFS semantics, namely
>that rdfs:subClass implies the subset of the corresponding extensions, but not
>viceversa.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
>> But I’m not willing to argue about what is obvious and what is not, since
>there may be different categories of 'obvious', so let’s not go on with this
>potentially infinite discussion :-)
>
> We are not having a discussion. I am telling you why the RDF(S) data
> model was designed in the way that it was, which involves not treating
> classes as identical to their set extensions, and not using your 'iff'
> definitions of subProperty and subClass. This was not an inadvertant
> omission, but a deliberate design decision. I believe that the 2004
> Semantics document makes this quite clear. This has now become a
> non-issue, and all mention of extensionality in RDF(S) has been
> dropped from the revised RDF 1.1 specifications, since as far as the
> WG could determine, nobody has expressed the slightest interest in the
> issue.
>
>> But let’s focus on the inferences which are lost if you adopt a weak
>semantics as in RDFS.
>
> "Losing" inferences is actually an advantage, if you are not
> particularly interested in the consquences of those inferences, as it
> simplifies reasoning and saves time. The overwhelming majority of RDF
> applications, and those for which it was primarily designed, involve
> using subclass and subproperty and domain assertions to conclude
> data-level facts from other data, not to derive new theorems at the
> vocabulary-ontology level. If you want to do that, by all means use
> OWL. But most RDF users have not even read the OWL specs.
>
>> The missed inferences I’m showing in slide 11 are actually expected by
>everyone I met so far.
>
> Then you have not met a wide enough class of users :-) I will concede
> that the inference patterns
>
> aaa subProperty bbb .
> bbb domain//range ccc .
> |=
> aaa domain//range ccc .
>
> are a reasonably intuitive idea which could be added as axioms,
> although I can see ways in which it would be found puzzling by some
> users (those who are used to thinking of domains and ranges as
> attached to a class rather than to its extension.) But I have never
> come across any application that needed it, and AFAIK it has never
> been requested or even suggested by any RDF user. Part of the overall
> design philosophy of RDF was to keep the 'core' semantics as minimal
> as possible, and allow semantic extensions to extend this minimal
> core.
>
>> Similarly, there are analogous missed inferences with 'domain'. In all my
>discussions with people around the world, I always had a surprise reaction;
>people never realised these inferences were missing and they wonder why they
>don’t have them. People build applications by assuming the presence of all
>valid statements, but here they are missing some.
>
> No, they are not missing valid statements, because these are not valid
> with the semantics as stated. Calling them "valid" begs the question.
> I am sure many people, especially people with a logical training, do
> indeed come to RDFS with a presumption that the semantics is
> extensional, and are surprised to find that it is not. However, many
> other people (for example, users trained in library science) find such
> conclusions quite unintuitive, and find other consequences of
> extensionality, such as the identity of classes with the same members,
> not only unintuitive but clearly wrong.
>
>> So, I don’t really understand your statement that extensional RDFS "has
>entailments that are not at all natural in many cases, and would make problems
>for a number of widely used ontologies". Can you please elaborate on that?
>
> The data model of SKOS, for example, is explicitly non-extensional.
> But also, identifying classes and properties with their extensions
> would make many RDF axioms incoherent, for example
>
> rdfs:Class rdf:type rdfs:Class .
>
> would violate the ZFC axiom of foundation.
>
> Pat
>
>> cheers
>> —e.
>
>
> ========
>
>
> ---------- original message ----------
> From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03
> - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> I forgot to add a note regarding your comment on slide 8. That slide
> has the only purpose to show the necessity of explicit transitivity
> axioms. So, you are right that the "conclusion follows from the
> transitivity of rdfs:subProperty", since this is exactly what I wanted
> to show.
>
> cheers
> —e.
>
>
>> On 23 Nov 2013, at 10:40, Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> I believe that there is one expected obvious meaning to the notion of
> "subClass", which corresponds to subset of the corresponding
> extensions if you see classes as sets. As a matter of facts, this is
> partially true in the RDFS semantics, namely that rdfs:subClass
> implies the subset of the corresponding extensions, but not viceversa.
>
> But I’m not willing to argue about what is obvious and what is not,
> since there may be different categories of 'obvious', so let’s not go
> on with this potentially infinite discussion :-)
>
> But let’s focus on the inferences which are lost if you adopt a weak
> semantics as in RDFS. The missed inferences I’m showing in slide 11
> are actually expected by everyone I met so far. Similarly, there are
> analogous missed inferences with 'domain'. In all my discussions with
> people around the world, I always had a surprise reaction; people
> never realised these inferences were missing and they wonder why they
> don’t have them. People build applications by assuming the presence of
> all valid statements, but here they are missing some.
>
> So, I don’t really understand your statement that extensional RDFS
> "has entailments that are not at all natural in many cases, and would
> make problems for a number of widely used ontologies". Can you please
> elaborate on that?
>
> cheers
> —e.
>
>
> ============
>
>
> ---------- original message ----------
> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03
> - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:04 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear Pat,
>>
>>
>> During yesterday's RulesReasoningLP mini-series session-03, Enrico
>> Franconi made a very interesting presentation, entitled: "The Logic of
>> Extensional RDFS" during which he remarked on certain aspects of
>> RDF/RDFS for which he may have an elegant solution for. (He even
>> called out your name, Pat, in the talk.)
>>
>> See:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21#nid412U
>> ... with his slides at:
>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/RulesReasoningLP/2013-11-21_Concepts-Foundations-II/The-Logic-of-Extensional-RDFS--EnricoFranconi_20131121.pdf
>> ... and recording of his talk, starting at time-point 1:03:56 in
>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/RulesReasoningLP/2013-11-21_Concepts-Foundations-II/RulesReasoningLP-s03_20131121b.mp3
>> ...... ref. also my exchange with him (asking if you are aware of this
>> work) at time-point 1:22:20
>>
>> I promised I will write you, to help draw your attention to what he
>> has been working on, and maybe you can help assess whether it would be
>> meaningful to incorporate some of his thinking into the W3C RDF/RDFS
>> standardization exercise. I do understand that the timing is probably
>> off, and any candidate change has probably missed the cycle and
>> iteration that you've been working on over the last couple of years
>> (or so) ...
>
> Yes, the timing is quite impossible. These documents are now past the
> last call stage and are in candidate recommendation. AFAIK, Enrico has
> not made any of this visible to the RDF WG in any comments. So this is
> basically irrelevant until the W3C calls for a new RDF WG, which will
> likely not happen now for several years.
>
> FWIW, we did consider an extensional semantics for RDF in 2004 but
> rejected it as it seemed less natural than the intensional semantics.
> It has entailments that are not at all natural in many cases, and
> would make problems for a number of widely used ontologies (notably
> SKOS). I argued, unsuccessfully, for OWL to adopt the intensional
> semantic style, which I still think is more suitable for most data
> applications. The 2004 RDF semantics did outline this extensional
> semantics (non-normatively) and explained some of its consequences.
> The level of interest in this in the RDF world has been so low that we
> simply omitted it from the 2013 specifications, but it is of course a
> valid semantic extension of RDFS.
>
> I have not yet had the chance to listen to the talk, but glancing at
> the slides, slide 5 is incorrect. This is not the "intended meaning"
> of rdfs:subClass. If it were, of course the published semantics would
> be inadequate. The rest of the presentation seems to be solving a
> problem which is not actually a problem, under the misapprehension
> that RDFS was intended to be an extensional logic in the first place.
> But it was not.
>
> Slide 8 puzzles me. The conclusion would seem to follow from the
> transitivity of rdfs:subProperty, unless the red diamond has more
> meaning than is apparent in the slide (?)
>
> I will comment further when I have had a chance to listen to the talk.
>
> Pat
>
>>
>> Comments, pointers, ... ?
>>
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
> ==========
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03
> - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Dear Pat,
>
>
> During yesterday's RulesReasoningLP mini-series session-03, Enrico
> Franconi made a very interesting presentation, entitled: "The Logic of
> Extensional RDFS" during which he remarked on certain aspects of
> RDF/RDFS for which he may have an elegant solution for. (He even
> called out your name, Pat, in the talk.)
>
> See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21#nid412U
> ... with his slides at:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/RulesReasoningLP/2013-11-21_Concepts-Foundations-II/The-Logic-of-Extensional-RDFS--EnricoFranconi_20131121.pdf
> ... and recording of his talk, starting at time-point 1:03:56 in
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/RulesReasoningLP/2013-11-21_Concepts-Foundations-II/RulesReasoningLP-s03_20131121b.mp3
> ...... ref. also my exchange with him (asking if you are aware of this
> work) at time-point 1:22:20
>
> I promised I will write you, to help draw your attention to what he
> has been working on, and maybe you can help assess whether it would be
> meaningful to incorporate some of his thinking into the W3C RDF/RDFS
> standardization exercise. I do understand that the timing is probably
> off, and any candidate change has probably missed the cycle and
> iteration that you've been working on over the last couple of years
> (or so) ...
>
> Comments, pointers, ... ?
>
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:48 PM
> Subject: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 -
> Thu 2013.11.21
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Markus
> Kroetzsch <markus.kroetzsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Héctor Pérez Urbina
> <hector@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hassan Aït-Kaci <hassanaitkaci@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Enrico Franconi <franconi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>, Pascal Hitzler
> <pascal.hitzler@xxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin Grosof
> <benjamin.grosof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Evren Sirin
> <evren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> We had a really interesting and substantive session yesterday. I'm
> writing to let everyone know that the full proceedings of the session
> - agenda, abstracts, slides, in-session chat-transcript, audio
> recording, attendee roster, etc. - are all on archive now, available
> online, and publicly accessible under:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21#nid3ZV5
>
> A huge THANK YOU to all the speakers for sharing their work and
> insights with us. They are, again, contributing key pieces to the body
> of knowledge that this community has been collectively building.
>
> The next event (session-04) for this RulesReasoningLP mini-series will
> be coming up on Dec-19, entitled: "Guide to Reasoning Applications
> Development and Cases" - Co-chairs: HensonGraves & KenBaclawski -
> watch out for details in further announcements, and posts on the wiki
> under "News and Announcements" -
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidW
>
>
> In the mean time, Happy Thanksgiving (to those in the US.) There will
> not be any mini-series panel session next week. Do join us, though,
> in two weeks (Thu 2013-12-05) for the OntologySummit2014 Pre-Launch
> Community Session, when we will collaboratively work up a program for
> our next OntologySummit.Talk to you all, then!
>
>
> Regards. =ppy
>
> For the Session Co-chairs
> Leo Obrst & Pascal Hitzler
>
> ... along with other co-champions of
> the RulesReasoningLP mini-series
> --
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> .
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21
>
>
> = REMINDER =
>
>
> This is a reminder that the "RulesReasoningLP" mini-series session-03:
> "Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic Programs,
> Classical Logic, and Semantic Web - II " is coming up tomorrow
> (Thursday, Nov-21.)
>
> Dr. Leo Obrst and Professor Pascal Hitzler will be co-chairing the
> session, and have invited over Dr. Markus Kroetzsch, Dr. Hector
> Perez-Urbina, Professor Hassan Ait-Kaci and Professor Enrico Franconi
> to join us as panelists. An open Q&A and discussion will follow, as
> usual, after the panelists' presentations.
>
> If you have a professional interest in Ontology, Rules, and Logic
> Programming for Reasoning and Applications, you probably don't want to
> miss this session, and the rest of the events of this mini-series.
>
> RSVP now, if you haven't already! (... see details below)
>
>
> * Date: Thursday, 21-Nov-2013
>
> * Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/UTC
> ref: World Clock -
>
>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=21&year=2013&hour=9&min=30&sec=0&p1=224
> * Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
>
>
> * Dial-in:
> ** Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... Conference ID: 141184# , or
> ** Skype: in view of recent reported skype connection issues, this is
> not recommended (especially for speakers) although it may still
> work for some ... to do that, make a skype call to
> the skypeID: "joinconference"
> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
>
>
> Just point your browser to the session page:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21 when
> you are about to connect into the session. Details will be there at
> the top of the page. Please try dialing-in a few minutes before the
> scheduled start-time, as we have a very full program planned for this session.
>
>
> Talk to you all tomorrow! =ppy
>
> For the Session Co-chairs
> Leo Obrst & Pascal Hitzler
>
> ... along with other co-champions of
> the RulesReasoningLP mini-series
> --
>
>
> ---------- original message ----------
> From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM
> Subject: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013.11.21
> To: "[ontolog-invitation]" <ontolog-invitation@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> .
> Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> After the two very successful sessions last month, we are pleased to
> feature virtual panel session-03 of the "Ontology, Rules, and Logic
> Programming for Reasoning and Applications" (dubbed:
> "RulesReasoningLP") mini-series next Thursday, 21-Nov-2013. You are
> cordially invited to join us ... RSVP Now (details below)!
>
>
> * Date: Thursday, 21-Nov-2013
> * Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/UTC
> ** ref: World Clock -
>
>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=31&year=2013&hour=9&min=30&sec=0&p1=224
> * Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
>
> *Register your attendance* by emailing <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> off-line
> or register yourself directly to the wiki session page. Please specify
> the date or name of the session(s) you are registering for (your
> affiliation too, if you are not already a member of the community.)
>
>
> = RulesReasoningLP: mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013-11-21 =
>
> Topic: Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic
> Programs, Classical Logic, and Semantic Web - II
>
> Session Co-chairs: Dr. Leo Obrst (Ontolog; MITRE) & Professor Pascal
> Hitzler (Wright State U)
>
> Panelists / Briefings:
>
> * Dr. Markus Kroetzsch (Technische Universitat Dresden) - "Existential
> Rules in Ontological Modelling"
>
> * Dr. Hector Perez-Urbina (Clark & Parsia, LLC) - "Modeling with Rules
> in Practice"
>
> * Professor Hassan Ait-Kaci (Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1) -
> "Reasoning and the Semantic Web"
>
> * Professor Enrico Franconi (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano) - "The
> Logic of Extensional RDFS"
>
>
> This session is co-chaired by Dr. Leo Obrst and Professor Pascal
> Hitzler, and will be the second of the two sessions devoted to
> addressing the concepts and foundations of the technologies underlying
> ontology and rule reasoning, especially focused on logic programming
> and Semantic Web extensions. The session will comprise of briefings
> from the four invited panelists, followed by an open discussion among
> the panel and all the participants. See details on the session page
> at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_21
>
>
> This session, like all Ontolog virtual events, are open and free of
> charge. Anyone who is interested, or (better still) who may have
> something to contribute, is welcome. Please refer to event details on
> the session pages, to which the hyperlink is given above, where you
> will find session agenda, conference call dial-in, slides and other
> pertinent information. Feel free to pass this invitation along to
> colleagues who may also find these sessions to be of interest.
>
> *RSVP* by emailing Peter Yim at <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> offline (or add
> yourself directly to the session page if you are already an Ontolog
> community member) so that we can prepare enough resources to support
> everyone. [Please state clearly the date of the session you are
> registering for in your email; your affiliation too, if you are not a
> community member.]
>
> These sessions will be recorded and made available in a publicly
> accessible archive. Therefore, before participating, please make sure
> you are cognizant of our IPR policy (ref:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32).
>
>
> Regards. =ppy
>
> For the Session Co-chairs
> Leo Obrst & Pascal Hitzler
>
> ... along with other co-champions of
> the RulesReasoningLP mini-series
>
>
> p.s. see more details on the mini-series at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?RulesReasoningLP
> where you will find links to the full proceedings (including slides,
> in-session-chat-transcript,
> and audio recording) of session-01 & -02 at their respective session pages.
> --
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (019)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|