ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <Rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:07:21 -0700
Message-id: <017401d060dd$374593d0$a5d0bb70$@com>

Matthew wrote:

 

If you are to provide an adequate description of however the world is from different viewpoints, I think that must be so even. If not the different views would not work, and would be dismissed. The problem is that the different views are workable, rather than demonstrably wrong.

 

However, I don't think that a data format that obfuscates the different views helps. It does not make the different views the same somehow, it just demonstrates some level of equivalence. Equivalence is not the same as compatibility.

 

I agree.  It really does require a group of disagreeing SMEs to pull out the real information.  Individuals alone keep reasoning in the same circles without getting contradictory input from others, making corrections of their beliefs, and educating themselves in unfamiliar areas. 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper,

www DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:24 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies

 

Dear Pat,

It seems to me you are saying that the data elements that you need to talk

about what is true at a time and change over time are the same for the

different views of how the world is. I agree. If you are to provide an

adequate description of however the world is from different view points, I

think that must be so even. If not the different views would not work, and

would be dismissed. The problem is that the different views are workable,

rather than demonstrably wrong.

However, I don't think that a data format that obfuscates the different

views helps. It does not make the different views the same somehow, it just

demonstrates some level of equivalence. Equivalence is not the same as

compatibility.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England

and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,

SG6 2SU.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes

Sent: 16 March 2015 18:39

To: rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some

Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies

 

Greetings.

 

I have read, thought and occassionally written on this topic (of how to

describe real things involved with time and change) for many years. I have

come to think that much of the problem arises from a rather uninspiring but

very real problem, which is the expressive limitations imposed on

first-order descriptions (and hence, via Quine's dictum, on the ontologies

implied by those theories) by traditional syntactic limitations of

first-order syntax. These have been eliminated in ISO Common Logic by

allowing first-order quantification over all entities, including relations,

and by allowing relations (and functions) to be variadic. This allows one to

write axioms to 'convert' between formal styles of temporal description. For

example

 

(forall ((x PhysicalThing)(t Time) c) (iff (c x t)(c (x t)) ))

 

which says that a property of continuants holds at a time t just when the

corresponding property of occurrents is true of the t-slice of the

continuant. I know, of course, that philosophical doctrine prohibits taking

a time-slice of an occurrent: but the fact that (as Matthew points out)

these classifications refer to the exact same physical entities motivates

using the same name for (for example) me and my lifetime, and for the simple

property and its fluent variation with a temporal parameter.

 

Obviously this is oversimplified, but perhaps you get the idea. The basic

point, in any case, is that this entire discussion is made easier to handle

if the underlying formal language is truly ontologically neutral, rather

than imposing its own subtle (and familiar, perhaps) restrictions on what

can be said about various 'kinds' of 'thing' (such as the conventional FO

syntax not allowing properties and relations into the universe of discourse,

and requiring them to have a fixed number of arguments). 

 

Once this syntactic freedom is available, the various disputes about

different styles of temporal ontology (3-D versus 4-D, etc.) can be seen

simply as debates about the appropriate syntactic location for temporal

arguments, ie about where in a timeless sentence to add the temporal

parameter. Does one express (P x) + t as a temporal index added to a

sentence (TRUE[t] (P x) ) giving a temporally-indexed modal language, where

time is considered as a parameter of truth, or as an argument to relations

(P x t) giving a 3-d view of continuant entities with time-varying

properties, or as an argument to individual names, now treated as temporal

functions (P (x t)) giving a 4-d view of occurrent entities which have

temporal slices or parts? Or perhaps a judicious mix of these. In the usual

FOL syntax, these last two are sharply incompatible, since for example P has

one argument in one of them but two in the other, and x is a name in one but

a function in the other. So one is obliged to chose, or impose a careful,

rigid, discipline on how names are used. But this is merely an artifact of

the syntactic rigidity of traitional FO notations, and this rigidity has no

foundational basis, and can easily (almost trivially) be side-stepped.

 

In ISO-CL, *all* of these various syntactic patterns can co-exist, with the

same names used for the entities and all their relations no matter where the

argument is located (so that the enduring, timeless PatHayes is the exact

same entity as the PatHayes which can be sliced by taking a temporal

argument in terms such as (PatHayes 1966), used in sentences such as

(Undergraduate (PatHayes 1963)) which refers to a section of my past life,

or - which is the *very same* thing - me in the past, since this sentence is

equivalent (using the earlier axiom) to the alternative form (Undergraduate

PatHayes 1963), which treats me as a continuant rather than an occurrent and

treats the relation as a fluent rather than a simple property. But, to

emphasize, in ISO-CL, all the names in these sentences and terms refer to

single entities: the PatHayes which gets timesliced and the PatHayes which

is treated as a continuant are the same, unique referent of the name

"PatHayes" in every CL universe of interpretation. There is no need to keep

a separate accounting of me vs my life, or to write two versions of many

axioms, one in the 'fluent' style and the oher in the '4-d' style, as one

sees throughout the OBO basic ontologies. The division of the universe  into

these categories which seems to be so important in many formal ontologies is

simply the result of looking at reality through crooked glasses created by

the traditional (but logically unnecessary) first-order segregated syntax.

 

Comments?

 

Pat Hayes

 

 

 

On Mar 15, 2015, at 7:55 PM, <rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx> <rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx>

wrote:

 

> Matthew,

>

> You wrote: [MW>] The problem with combining endurantism with a process (or

purdurantist) approach is that endurantism insists that physical objects

wholly exist at each point in time and pass through time, which means that

in particular that they do not have temporal parts. On the other hand a

process/purdurantist ontology has physical objects extended in time (like

processes) and hence they have temporal parts. Overcoming that contradiction

is non-trivial without actually changing sides, and the choice between them

is one of the core commitments one has to make.

>

> You've described traditional views of perdurantism, and also what is often

presented as a contradiction. The idea is to develop other more accurate

conceptions of perdurantism/endurantism or some amalgam of the two seemingly

opposing views. I doubt there is reason to make the distinction dogma, and

from my experience it seems it's been accepted as such.

>

> Now, in philosophy, some have questioned the wholly-present aspect,

leading to a view according to which processes are persisting,

wholly-present yet ongoing or unfolding (in no temporally-extended sense)

entities (See Rowland Stout). In the applied side, as Galton et al.

(Waterfall paper) have said "objects are points of stability" in virtue of

processes they or their parts participate in. In my view, these are some

steps to a more accurate ontological description of existents.

>

> I believe traditional endurantism and perdurantism are too rigid and

narrow in themselves, each picking out aspects of the world, but are at

least two sides to the same coin in describing existents. If some are

interested in collaborating on a paper--ideally funded as it is important in

my circumstances--on these topics, contact me privately. As I said, I have

one, but the area needs more work.

>

> FYI: I've added 'Endurantism and Perdurantism' to the subject-line of this

thread, and including the comment by Rich below (because I seem to be

getting separate emails). For those responding further, I encourage

responding with that addition in the subject for reference and consistency

with the topic.

>

>

> Rich Cooper wrote:

> It seems to me that combining the two - object properties and process

properties - would be more realistic than separating them.  It has been

common practice to separate them for so long we should at least review the

reasons why we don't, in practice, put them together.

>

> In games, the objects go through state changes and also appear to perform

actions.  Those would certainly be natural examples we could discuss it that

way.  Starships, Klingons, Martians, ray weapons, shields, sick bay, Captain

Kirk, Scotty, the whole cast, the Conn, and all those objects could be used

as examples.

>

> But isn't the idea to construct "Scriptive" ontologies, i.e., task

schedules, as stored or calculated, for each object?  One purpose of the

historic separation was for partitioning the program, from the data tables,

so that the software could be generalized for use in wider application

domains.  But that separation changes the design to ensure that an API for

the scheduler would be distinct from an API to the script tables manager -

SQL or NoSQL.  Separating the two subsystems over the years has gradually

made each subsystem more general, more efficient at its subtask, and more

complete in its treatment of the combined System, both software and tables.

>

> HTML is an example of scripted layout, and there is an ontology of objects

and operations that can be extracted from the various verbs and nouns in

HTML pages.  HTML also separates out the verb parts from the declarative

parts, and the latest version is syntactically closed, so it's hierarchical

and very easy to parse.  Yet it still maintains the separation of objects

from processes.  Why is that the choice made instead of putting them

together?  What would be gained or lost by integrating them?

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Rich Cooper,

>

> Rich Cooper,

>

>

>

> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>

wrote:

> Dear Robert,

>

>

> There is actually a problem here.

>

> Just a quick note on a passage in this helpful thread (not intended to

deviate from the topic at hand, but important all the same)...

>

> MW: "The problem I have with this insistence that

activities/processes/events are disjoint from physical objects is that it

requires two objects for (amongst other things) me, one for me as the

physical object, and another for the activity of my life. I'm with John S.

(and some others) who take a process approach, seeing physical objects as

(relatively) slowly changing processes."

>

> I agree with not being entirely fond of the traditional object-process

distinction as such. To me it does not seem to capture the fluid (so to

speak), processual-yet-persisting aspect of the world. However, one does not

necessarily have to chose either the process-ontology approach or

endurantism. One can think outside of the box and combine qualities of each.

The task would then be to solve whatever philosophical (or other) problems

that arise in doing so. This has been attempted, at least in philosophy. In

fact describing physical objects as slowly changing process is moving toward

that attempt. Anyway, one need not feel confined to the traditional

distinction as if there were no alternatives. One certainly not feel as if

we could not create (or discover) alternatives!

>

> [MW>] The problem with combining endurantism with a process (or

purdurantist) approach is that endurantism insists that physical objects

wholly exist at each point in time and pass through time, which means that

in particular that they do not have temporal parts. On the other hand a

process/purdurantist ontology has physical objects extended in time (like

processes) and hence they have temporal parts. Overcoming that contradiction

is non-trivial without actually changing sides, and the choice between them

is one of the core commitments one has to make.

>

>

> Regards

>

>

> Matthew West                          

>

> Information  Junction

>

> Mobile: +44 750 3385279

>

> Skype: dr.matthew.west

>

> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

>

> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

>

> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England

and Wales No. 6632177.

>

> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,

Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU.

>

>

>

>

> Respectfully,

> Robert

>

> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>

wrote:

>

> Dear Thomas,

>

>

>

> 3/24/15.

>

> To: Ontolog Discussion Group

>

> From: Tom Johnston (new member)

>

> [MW>] Welcome!

>

>

> I would like to comment on the current discussion about SMEs and

ontologies.

>

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> (note: in the upper-level ontology I developed in my recent book

"Bitemporal Data: Theory and Practice" (Morgan-Kaufmann, 2014), objects and

events divide the world between them; they are exhaustive of what there is,

and nothing is both an object and an event. Objects come into existence,

cease to exist and, while they exist, change from one state to a successive

state by participating in events. I consider this the formalization of an

upper-level folk ontology which is the ontology common to all relational

databases.

>

> [MW>] That is not true, relational technology is neutral in ontological

commitments, except that it requires that tables cannot themselves be

instances of other tables. However, I accept many relational databases adopt

this commitment. The problem I have with this insistence that

activities/processes/events are disjoint from physical objects is that it

requires two objects for (amongst other things) me, one for me as the

physical object, and another for the activity of my life. I'm with John S.

(and some others) who take a process approach, seeing physical objects as

(relatively) slowly changing processes.

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> During the JAD sessions (see below), the initial statement of requirements

will be transformed into a different set of requirements that are not simply

the initial requirements stated in greater detail. The initial set of

objects, events and transformations will be similarly transformed as the BA

helps the SMEs realize (a) ambiguities inherent in their original statement,

(b) generalizations of their requirements that will do what they require but

also additional useful things; (c) restrictions on their requirements

because the current state of technology at the enterprise would make their

satisfaction unacceptably expensive; and (d) a sorting of initial

requirements into do-now and do-later categories, based on dependencies

among the requirements, and on the need to keep the project on-time and

under budget (so both the BA and the SMEs, whose names are most directly

attached to the project, will look good to their bosses when the whole thing

eventually moves into production status).

>

> [MW>] The challenge I find is in validating the requirements (providing

evidence to support them).

>

>

> JAD: joint application development (a somewhat outdated term).

>

> [MW>] I think SCRUM is the current incarnation of this.

>

>     . Next, a comment on SMEs.

>

> It is this: SMEs generally do not know what they are talking about. To

repeat: SMEs generally do not know what they are talking about.

>

> [MW>] John made a similar point, and I agree. I was too polite in my

earlier post. In particular they generally don't know what they don't know.

>

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> For anyone familiar with Plato's Socratic dialogues (early and middle

period dialogues), I can make my point like this: SMEs (Gorgias, Meno,

Protagoras, etc.) are the protagonists of Socrates (the BA) in those

dialogues. Those SMEs are the ones who profess to know something - about

knowledge, justice, courage, etc. Socrates engages each of them in a dialog

which always ends with Socrates demonstrating, usually by eliciting a

contradiction from his protagonist, that the SME actually doesn't know what

he claims to know.

>

>

> But there is one difference between Socrates and today's BAs. Socrates is

content (pleased, in fact, his protestations to the contrary) to show that

his protagonists don't know what they claim to know. Today's BAs, however,

cannot afford that luxury. Today's BAs must somehow guide her SMEs from

ignorance to knowledge, from vague, ambiguous, incomplete or otherwise

inchoate initial statements of what they want to a final statement which

will mediate between them and the developers who will implement their

requirements.

>

>

> One conclusion from all this is that the (ontologically-adept) BA must

take a very active role in eliciting and clarifying definitions of the

objects and events of concern to the enterprise. Her role must not be

tidying up around the edges of what the SMEs initial come up with as a

requirements statement. She must not use a light touch. She must challenge

her SMEs as aggressively as Socrates challenged the self-proclaimed experts

he engaged with.

>

> [MW>] I agree.

>

>

> Is there any additional guidance I can suggest, other than these very

general comments?

>

>

> There is. I would like to suggest that before we begin eliciting

ontological commitments from SMEs, we should clarify (a) what we are

defining, and (b) what a definition is.

>

>

> (3) What are we defining when we ask SMEs for definitions?

>

>

> Let's take Customer as an example. In any enterprise, in any JAD session,

with any group of SMEs, when we ask "What is a customer?" (the same "What is

X?" question form as Aristotle's most basic ontological question, ti esti?),

surely we must be asking for something besides a dictionary definition.

>

>

> We don't need SMEs to formulate general definitions, whether they are

do-it-yourself dictionary definitions, or definitions defining nodes in a

taxonomy whose linearly parent nodes, up to the root node, have already been

defined. We are asking our SMEs what a customer of our enterprise is, that

is, what a customer of our enterprise in fact is, not what the SMEs think a

customer of our enterprise ideally should be.

>

> [MW>] Yes. When I was talking about an evidence based approach in my

response to John, this is the kind of thing I was meaning.

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> In any relationship of a set and its immediate superset, the immediate

superset defines a universe of discourse from which the members of the set

are chosen by means of that rule. For example, the set Customer will have

(whether represented as such in a database or not) as an immediate superset

the set Party, which we can think of as being the set of all those

individuals or organizations with which our organization engages in some

way.

>

>

> This immediately excludes from the universe of discourse for Customer such

things as dogs, cars, and also any persons or groups not able to enter into

a legal agreement (which a customer relationship is). Now, to define what a

customer of our enterprise is, all we need to do is to state the rule which

picks out a subset from that universe of discourse.

>

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> To accept a person or organization as a customer is to add a row to the

enterprise's Customer table representing that person or organization.

>

> [MW>] I was once given as a definition of "Customer" "One who is

> recorded in on the Customer table". Accurate, but not actually useful

> J

>

> .a customer of our enterprise is - a subtype of a Party with whom we have

entered into a customer relationship, a relationship subject to conditions

stated in our policy manuals and implemented in our code.

>

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> Finding these definitions - which clearly can be done - is doing something

a lot more concrete than talking to a group of SMEs with the objective of

obtaining consensus definitions of such key terms as "customer".

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

>

> So we have steered away from the dragon of Wittgensteinian definitions,

and reached the safe fortress of Aristotelian definitions. To wit: the

category Customer (of enterprise X) is represented by a relational table

(hopefully named Customer, or something like it). A relational table is a

set. A set is a collection of set members drawn from a universe of discourse

such that the members of the set satisfy a specific set membership

criterion. That membership criterion is expressed in policy manuals, and in

the rules expressed in code that determine whether or not someone will be

added to the Customer table.

>

> [MW>] <snip>

>

> Prescriptive ontologies come into play, on my view, when our objective is

to construct higher-level ontologies, for example industry-level ontologies.

For these higher-level ontologies to play the role of facilitating semantic

interoperability across those industries, each enterprise subscribing to the

industry-level ontology must realize that their responsibility is not to

simply play lip service to the industry ontology. It is to begin the

difficult work of adjusting their de facto ontologies, including the set

membership rules for the sets represented as tables in their databases, so

that those lower-level ontological categories - the ones corresponding

one-to-one with their database tables, are consistent extensions of those

higher-level ontologies.

>

> [MW>] I've developed this kind of ontology. It is not really quite as you

describe. Generally industry ontologies are about supply chain integration,

so they do not cover all of an enterprises data. What becomes most important

is to identify the subset of the industry model that is relevant to your

slot in the supply chain, and to be sure that you can map your enterprise

model into and out of those parts of the industry model. That has more

flexibility than a simple subset, your mappings may be from multiple tables,

or a subset of one of your tables. The other key is to be able to

incorporate into your data key industry level master data such as product

categories and their specifications.

>

>

> This is the basic, boots-on-the-ground work that is required to make

prescriptive ontologies a reality. But the foundation from which we must

begin is what ontological commitments are in fact, right now, in place in

individual databases. The prescriptive work of integrating these de facto

low-level ontologies, however, is not simply a bottom-up process of

supertyping the types we begin with. It is a process of working with a

well-developed upper-level ontology as well as a set of de facto low-level

ontologies, combining top-down guidance towards an ideal goal with

real-world realizations of ontological categories that have been proven,

over time, to actually work.

>

> [MW>] Yes, but when you look at the commitments/rules imposed by a

database, you should also be questioning whether these are not imposed as an

implementation convenience (changing what are really many-to-many

relationships to one-to-many for example).

>

>

> Perhaps this is something of a Manifesto - a description of a research and

a development program of work guided by strong theoretical commitments and

also a commitment to objects and processes that are time-tested in the real

world. I don't like the term "Manifesto", simply because of its creaky 19th

century feel. But I am proposing that we clearly distinguish descriptive

from prescriptive ontologies, clearly recognize the importance of

descriptive ontologies, and begin to formalize them in the manner described

above.

>

>

> Comments?

>

> [MW>] I think you are raising a lot of valid issues.

>

>

> Regards

>

>

> Matthew West                          

>

> Information  Junction

>

> Mobile: +44 750 3385279

>

> Skype: dr.matthew.west

>

> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

>

> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

>

> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England

and Wales No. 6632177.

>

> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,

Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> 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

 

------------------------------------------------------------

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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    (01)

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