Attached the sections on quality from the
Digital Library Reference Model. This might be helpful (01)
DS (02)
At 1/25/2011 10:45 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>Dear Azamat,
>
>Thanks for the plug.
>
>The diagram I have used in my book "Developing
>High Quality Data Models" published by Morgan
>Kaufmann, ISBN: 978-0-12-375106-5 is in the
>attached pdf (P2). You will see it is not so
>different from the original, and is annotated
>with the ways that data models contribute to information quality.
>
>I do not attempt to catalogue all properties of
>information, just those I have found in practice
>most often to have been critical.
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew West
>Information Junction
>Tel: +44 560 302 3685
>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.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
> > Sent: 24 January 2011 19:51
> > To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Data Quality - Was: Invitation to a
> > brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
> >
> > >From Matthew West's study on the high quality data models,
> >
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/princ03.pdf, there is a listing of
> > key properties, as pictured below. One could also add relativity, utility,
> > worth, correctness, originality, credibility, certainty, truth, etc. As i
> > know, there is a new book coming.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "MacPherson, Deborah" <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:22 PM
> > Subject: [ontology-summit] Data Quality -
> Was: Invitation to a brainstorming
> > call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
> >
> >
> > > From the US Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
> > > Policy Information
> > >
> > > "...Accuracy is only one characteristic of quality, just as validity
> > > or conformance to business rules is one characteristic of quality.
> > > These characteristics are some of the information quality
> > > characteristics categorized as inherent characteristics.
> > >
> > > Fitness for purpose is the characteristic of usefulness of data for a
> > > specific requirement..."
> > >
> > > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/dataquality.cfm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
> > > Specifications and Research
> > >
> > > Cannon Design
> > > 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
> > > Arlington, Virginia 22209
> > >
> > > Direct Line 703 907 2353
> > > 4 Digit Dial 6353
> > >
> > > dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > cannondesign.com
> > >
> > > ΓΌ Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter R.
> > > Benson
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:42 AM
> > > To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> > > Cc: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for
> > > the
> > > 2011 Ontology Summit
> > >
> > > The definition of "quality" is pretty simple "meets requirements" the
> > > issue is how to define requirements. ISO 22745-30 does a pretty good job.
> > >
> > > Data and Information are two different concepts, their characteristics
> > > are different. Timeliness and relevance are characteristics of
> > > information, the data is what it is. Finally there is no such thing as
> > > accuracy only assertions of accuracy. A lot of this ground is covered
> > > in ISO 8000
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > Cell: +1 610 462 5923
> > >
> > > On Jan 22, 2011, at 9:18 AM, "Brian K Lucas" <lucasb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Greetings all,
> > >>
> > >> I like this discussion, and have a few thoughts of my own (as you
> > >> come to know me more, you'll discover that to be the norm ;=)
> > >>
> > >> A) @Jack : I agree that "adequate,
> accurate and timely" is a worthy goal.
> > >> I'd like to hear more about your
> definition of "adequate" and "accurate".
> > >>
> > >> B) @Jack : Regarding quality: In my experience, "fitness for purpose"
> > >> is trinary, when taken from a single consumer's point of view: not
> > >> fit, fit, overly fit. In the real world, however, very few offerings
> > >> are consumed by a single entity. Therefore, I believe that, when
> > >> taken in the context of the offering, and including all consumers,
> > >> fitness for purpose/quality is indeed scalar, if the measurement is
> > >> being taken from the perspective of the producer. If you complete a
> > >> histogram/pie chart of these three values for all consumers, you get
> > >> three counts of valuable metrics, which should not be
> > >> combined: % fit for purpose, % not fit for purpose, and %overly fit
> > >> for purpose. The requirements not met for the "not fit" group
> > >> represent offering "defects"; the requirements met for the "overly
> > >> fit" group represent waste of effort for that consumer group. If
> > >> requirements have been implemented that NOBODY in the "fit" group
> > >> needs, then that is wasted producer effort - unless, of course, they
> > >> serve a future consumer. My conclusion? There is value in measuring
> > >> "quality" across the existing and intended user base, and improving
> > >> the offering to move more consumers into the "fit for purpose" count,
> > >> without removing anyone who is already there.
> > >> And, because consumer requirements usually change over time,
> > >> continuous improvement of "quality" is desirable. Then, add in that
> > >> even for a single consumer, they may present KANO-like ranking of
> > >> requirements (must have, should have, could have, etc.), and binary
> > >> gets even a little more fuzzy for me.
> > >>
> > >> C) Producer cost is also key here. If the value exchange received by
> > >> the consumer does not support the cost to meet their requirements,
> > >> then a "not fit" offering may still be of value to the consumer, as
> > >> they may augment it with other offerings. An example of this is
> > >> Microsoft Word. It does NOT meet all of my requirements - and yet I
> > >> find it "fit for purpose" because I can work around the "defects".
> > >>
> > >> D) @Nicola : I agree with the case for varying levels of "quality";
> > >> however, I also think that case studies are notoriously hard to
> > >> quantify. In my experience, it is usually an opinion that one work
> > >> method over another produced "better" results, because most people
> > >> don't try it both ways and actually measure fitness for purpose
> > >> afterwards.
> > >>
> > >> E) I have been working on an ontology of organizations and human
> > >> value exchange. I have tried traditional ERD-style modeling,
> > >> object-oriented class modeling, and now OWL ontology modeling. Each
> > >> has strengths as a modeling method; each has "defects", or "fitness
> > >> of purpose" for my work.
> > >> It may be an understanding defect on my part, but one of the primary
> > >> issues that I have been facing is polymorphism of modeled objects.
> > >> As soon as you "declare" something to be of a "type" of some modeling
> > >> class/entity/etc, you constrain it from taking on characteristics of
> > >> other classes that it may also play a role in. An example is a human
> > >> - most people would model "human" as a class; but in my domain, a
> > >> "human" is also the offering of an educational process (with an
> > >> improved knowledge metric). My solution so far has been to only use
> > >> inferred classes to discover a thing's class by its relationships.
> > >> So, from my perspective, I am finding ontologies "not fit for purpose"
> > >> in their current description language and implementation. I am
> > >> interested in thoughts that the other summit participants may have to
> > >> help me remove this obstacle - even if it is more training for me on
> > >> building ontologies. :=)
> > >>
> > >> Brian K. Lucas
> > >> Sponsor, Worldwide Institute for Organization Ontologics
> > >> Lucasb-at-wio2-dot-org
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim
> > >> Wilson
> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:11 AM
> > >> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for
> > >> the
> > >> 2011 Ontology Summit
> > >>
> > >> Gentlemen,
> > >>
> > >> If I may jump in here. This discussion makes me think of the 85/15
> > >> rule where finding and fixing 85% of all software bugs is relatively
> > >> easy, the last 15% is much more difficult in terms of time and effort.
> > >> There comes a point where developers have to say that the ontology is
> > >> 'good enough'. Jack is arguing that this does not constitute 'high
> > >> quality'
> > >> and therefore the comment on quality being binary. Some person or
> > >> persons must make a decision that the product is good enough (until
> > >> the next serious bug is uncovered). You may think that there are no
> > >> more blue balls in the bin, but yet one is found. Quality instantly
> > >> goes from "1" to "0" until the issue is analyzed and a choice is made
> > >> to either ignore it or fix it.
> > >>
> > >> Tim Wilson
> > >>
> > >> On 12/15/2010 3:22 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> > >>> Dear Jack,
> > >>>
> > >>>> MW,
> > >>>> Standing on the shoulders of Deming, Crosby, Juran, etc. I would
> > >>>> first ask
> > >>> the
> > >>>> owner a) Is the fifth one guaranteed irrelevant
> > >>> MW: I am assuming it is relevant.
> > >>>
> > >>>> and b) what is your level of
> > >>>> confidence there are not 6 errors?
> > >>>> Jack
> > >>> MW: Indeed, but then by the same token how can you be certain
> > >>> anything is defect free, even if no defects are apparent?
> > >>>
> > >>> MW: I think it is more useful to think of quality as the degree to
> > >>> which requirements are met. Then when you fix some bugs you have
> > >>> improved the quality, though you may not have met all the requirements.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>>
> > >>> Matthew West
> > >>> Information Junction
> > >>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> > >>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Dear Jack,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regarding Nicola's quite relevant concern (below) it may be
> > >>>>>> useful to
> > >>> note
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>> a) quality is binary, not a scalar (Crosby, Deming, Juran, etc.)
> > >>> Quality
> > >>>>>> signifies conformance to requirements, Yes or No, therefore
> > >>>>>> 'high
> > >>>>> quality' is
> > >>>>>> meaningless.
> > >>>>> MW: So presumably you would argue that if an ontology has 5
> > >>>>> defects, and
> > >>> 4
> > >>>>> of them are fixed, there is not
> improvement in quality as a result....
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Matthew West
> > >>>>> Information Junction
> > >>>>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> > >>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> b) note carefully that from the usage viewpoint the requirements
> > >>>>>> amount
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>> 'fit for purpose' (Checkland) or 'satisficing' (Simon).
> > >>>>>> c) both proof of correctness and exhaustive test are futile,
> > >>>>>> therefore
> > >>> not
> > >>>>>> included.
> > >>>>>> d) the goal becomes warranty that the ontology of interest is
> > >>>>>> devoid of internal faults and external incompatibilities wherein
> > >>>>>> warranty means
> > >>> zero
> > >>>>>> false positives and false negatives.
> > >>>>>> e) an appropriate theme may be "Making the case for adequate,
> > >>>>>> accurate
> > >>> and
> > >>>>>> timely ontologies" which embraces both the result and the
> > >>>>>> development activity.
> > >>>>>> f) whether any ontology is viable or not depends on both the
> > >>>>>> ontology
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>> intended usage.
> > >>>>>> g) this means that any cadre of ontology developers must include
> > >>> members
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>> are dedicated to independent and objective assessment of the
> > >>>>>> viability
> > >>> of
> > >>>>> any
> > >>>>>> ontology or patch thereof or ordered set of patches.
> > >>>>>> h) fortunately, technologies, tools and methods exist (or are
> > >>>>>> imminent)
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>> viability assessment of algorithms of all classes and types with
> > >>> respect
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> intended usage. This includes ontologies. Even the spaghetti code
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>> most
> > >>>>> OWL-
> > >>>>>> based examples can be assessed, even simplified, and potentially
> > >>>>>> made
> > >>> more
> > >>>>>> "lean" without inducing 'brittle.'
> > >>>>>> i) this is one reason why I suggested to Steve Ray that one
> > >>>>>> corner of
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> Summit allow open-mind dialogue regarding new technologies.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Onward,
> > >>>>>> Jack Ring
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Nicola Guarino wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I also agree very much with John and Matthew concerning the
> > >>>>> importance
> > >>>>>> of high quality ontologies, and on their observation that the
> > >>>>>> quest for
> > >>>>> high
> > >>>>>> quality data models in software engineering definitely reflects a
> > >>>>> sensitivity
> > >>>>>> to important ontological aspects much higher than what we find in
> > >>> people
> > >>>>> just
> > >>>>>> focusing on ontology languages.
> > >>>>>>> In the light of this, I suggest to specify a bit more the
> > >>>>>>> overall
> > >>>>> theme
> > >>>>>> of our Summit, which in my opinion could be "Making the case for
> > >>>>> ontological
> > >>>>>> analysis" instead of "Making the case for ontology". An
> > >>>>>> alternative
> > >>> could
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>> "Making the case for high-quality ontologies".
> > >>>>>>> The reason for this proposal should be self-evident, I believe.
> > >>>>> Deciding
> > >>>>>> how much effort to put in developing a particular ontology is a
> > >>>>>> crucial choice, and it is very important to distinguish the cases
> > >>>>>> where a
> > >>> proper
> > >>>>>> ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a crucial aspect of
> > >>> success,
> > >>>>> from
> > >>>>>> those where a "lightweight" approach is sufficient.
> > >>>>>>> Just brainstorming...
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Talk to you soon,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Nicola
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2010, at 16:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Dear Matthew and Peter,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> MW:
> > >>>>>>>>> ... my forthcoming book "Developing High Quality Data Models".
> > >>>>> Substitute
> > >>>>>>>>> ontology for data model and the same argument applies. The
> > >>>>>>>>> benefits
> > >>>>> come
> > >>>>>>>>> from improving and automating decision making through
> > >>> fit-for-purpose
> > >>>>>>>>> information to support those decisions.
> > >>>>>>>> I very strongly agree. Software engineers have been doing
> > >>>>>>>> ontology (avant la lettre, as they say) for a very long time.
> > >>>>>>>> And much of
> > >>> that
> > >>>>>>>> work has been very good -- sometimes much better than what
> > >>>>>>>> people are doing with so-called ontology languages.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> _ Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>>>> Subscribe/Config:
> > >>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>>> Community Files:
> > >>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >>>>>>> Community Wiki:
> > >>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >>>>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>>> Subscribe/Config:
> > >>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>> Community Files:
> > >>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >>>>>> Community Wiki:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >>>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>>>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>> Subscribe/Config:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >>>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>> Community Files:
> > >>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >>>>> Community Wiki:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >>>> Subscribe/Config:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>> Community Files:
> > >>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >>>> Community Wiki:
> > >>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>>
> > >>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >>> Subscribe/Config:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> Community Files:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >>> Community Wiki:
> > >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Timothy C. Wilson
> > >> Graduate Student in Knowledge Management Kent State University
> > >> Expected
> > >> Completion: August 2011
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >> Subscribe/Config:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Community Files:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >> Community Wiki:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > >> Subscribe/Config:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Community Files:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > >> Community Wiki:
> > >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > > Subscribe/Config:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > > Community Wiki:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> > > Subscribe/Config:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> > > Community Wiki:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > >
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
Dagobert Soergel
Professor and Chair
Department of Library and Information Studies
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
534 Baldy Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1020;
Professor Emeritus, Information Studies, University of Maryland
Office: 716-645-1474; Fax 716 645-3775
Home: 703-823-2840; Fax: 703-823-6427
Mobile: 703-585-2840
dsoergel@xxxxxxxxxxx www.dsoergel.com
For appointments please contact "Barbara
Routhier" <dscal@xxxxxxxxxxx> 716-645-1477 (04)
DigitalLibraryReferenceModelQuality.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|