Second rule. Never use "you"
Doesn't trust put credence on a) who says X instead of on b) results of vetting
the content of X?
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:30 PM, Jack Park wrote: (01)
> My own opinion on this (no easily accessed backing scholarship to
> quote) is that questions, that is the idea of questions, is does not
> an adversarial environment create, or prevent. But...and I think this
> is important, *how* a question is posed seems all important.
>
> I'll only point out that a question like "so, why is it that you don't
> like ..." is bound to irritate, whereas a question that simply seeks
> to learn of the views of others does not have to be like that, so
> long as there is an acquired *trust* that the environment is safe.
> That safety, I believe, is the whole point of a Bohmian conversation,
> and, I believe, lies at the heart of Amanda's earlier comments.
>
> Do questions suppress adversarial interaction? My answer: Yes if done
> thoughtfully. No if not done thoughtfully. Questions can serve as
> proxies for agendas. They don't have to do that.
>
> If there is one attribute of a sensemaking environment that trumps all
> others, it might be trust. Trust is built on reputations. I'd rate
> reputations right up there in the top levels of sensemaking
> environment membership attributes.
>
> If pressed, I'd say that the ONTOLOG community is comprised of members
> with reputations conducive of a high level of trust. I've seen drifts
> that could have spiraled downward, but the community seems stable and
> not given to losing control. The community's bylaws and leadership,
> IMHO, are worthy of praise here.
>
> JackP
> FWIW: I say all that knowing that I have a personal history of
> occasionally lobbing firebombs into otherwise stable conversations. In
> some sense, I'm somewhat like that alcoholic that knows the
> rules...Bohmian conversations are not easy.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is an effective suppressor of adversarial interaction the asking of
>questions?
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>>
>>> Amanda,
>>>
>>> I suspect it's profoundly off topic to this thread, but not off topic
>>> to the entire ONTOLOG inquiry, and that is the exploration of
>>> alternate means of doing the very sensemaking going on in this email
>>> list combined with the highly successful wiki platform. My sense,
>>> FWIW, is that there is plenty of room to reduce the adversarial aspect
>>> of our conversations. But, that's a different conversation. Many
>>> thanks for your views here.
>>>
>>> JackP
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Amanda Vizedom
>>> <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Jack,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the alternate framing! Yes, that's very much the spirit
>>>> intended. While last year's summit was (atypically) focused on marketing,
>>>> this year's isn't. This year, the project is much more about advancing
>>>> understanding, sharing what we know and making collaborative steps to
>>>> advance understanding at the intersections.
>>>>
>>>> I would only add that IMHO this stage is also preparation that makes some
>>>> later-stages less adversarial and more productive. That is, going through
>>>> this kind of information exchange and collaborative exploration can propel
>>>> researchers to work on what industry actually needs, ontologists to
>>>> understand better what systems engineers actually want and need, systems
>>>> engineers to understand better what to expect from ontology and how to get
>>>> what they want from it, and all parties to understand better how to talk to
>>>> each other in order to communicate and get things done.
>>>>
>>>> Amada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 22:01, Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Amanda's suggestion lives in the spirit of a Bohmian Dialogue,
>>>>> described by David Bohm in his book On Dialogue. The spirit has it
>>>>> that all agendas are "checked at the door", that the conversation is
>>>>> about information transfer in a congenial way.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, a Bohmian dialogue is used to set the stage for a later
>>>>> agenda-laden conversation, where the participants first get to know
>>>>> each other and talk about what they bring to the table without
>>>>> advertising agendas. Real information transfer can take place in such
>>>>> a non-adversarial environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Amanda Vizedom
>>>>> <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Barry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that Steve and Trish will be following the spirit and
>>>>>> description
>>>>>> of Track 4 and asking all invitees to talk about *use cases*, including
>>>>>> interesting features and lessons learned (including whatever evaluations
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> performance and value may have been performed). I've no doubt that
>>>>>> promotional or sales-like presentations will be discouraged equally of
>>>>>> anyone participating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I doubt that *any* use case owner is going to be willing to
>>>>>> share
>>>>>> their case or lessons openly if they feel that the summit will be used
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> trial venue for them, their system, their methods and such overall. And
>>>>>> even if they were willing, such a treatment would be just as off-topic
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> its promotional opposite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I share Matthew's concerns about focus, and I don't think we're going to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> there by defining focus in the abstract. I think we will be best able
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make progress by having some of this general discussion, then looking at
>>>>>> particular use cases to sharpen our focus. From there some foci should
>>>>>> emerge that are close enough to where real work is being done to point
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> continuing discussion toward areas in which the results of this
>>>>>> community's
>>>>>> exchange of idea can be of real use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this approach is right, it's important that we have a good set of use
>>>>>> cases *and treat them as use cases*. That is, we want to analyze and
>>>>>> learn
>>>>>> from them, collaboratively. We will lose that opportunity if we treat
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> either as promotional sessions or adversarial encounters. I trust our
>>>>>> Track
>>>>>> 4 co-champions to focus on bringing in presenters who have the knowledge
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> attitude to provide their use cases for collective analysis and
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> (and who very probably see that setting the community thinking about
>>>>>> issues they encountered has high potential value for their own, and the
>>>>>> field's, understanding). To encourage such participation and to get the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> out of it, we need to stay focused on the professional, technical
>>>>>> collaboration, not on individual or product promotion or denigration, as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Amanda
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 20:11, Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any speaker should be asked to provide empirical evidence to the effect
>>>>>>> that Cyc did indeed bring benefits to any real system
>>>>>>> BS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Steve Ray (CMU)
>>>>>>> <steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking for Track 4, I'll add the possibility of a talk about the
>>>>>>>> application of cyc to a real industrial system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suggestions of a speaker (and email introduction) for that particular
>>>>>>>> angle would be much appreciated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry Lefkowitz was on the call and chat for the first two sessions,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> especially active in chat for Session 2. I don't think anyone from
>>>>>>>> Cycorp
>>>>>>>> attended Session 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Peter that it seems too much, too late -- and not
>>>>>>>> necessarily on topic -- to spend a whole track, or even a whole
>>>>>>>> session,
>>>>>>>> given the limited number, on Cyc. However, I'd like to suggest that
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> might be good to include a Cyc-based use case in Track 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I see it, there are two very different types of use case to
>>>>>>>> consider,
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first is along the lines that Mike suggested: Look at an example
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the incorporation of Cyc into a larger system, e.g. the Cleveland
>>>>>>>> Clinic
>>>>>>>> case. I am sure there are many useful challenges, solutions, issues
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> lessons to be drawn from there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second involves looking at Cyc as a use case itself. It's often
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> case that when people say "Cyc" they mean the ontology, or the
>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>> base, but of course Cyc is itself a system, and quite a complex one at
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> It can be extendend, incorporated, taken partially, and/or connected
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> other components to form other systems with "Cyc Inside." And that's
>>>>>>>> generally where the value is going to be. Nevertheless, it is quite a
>>>>>>>> complex system on its own. There is "the ontology," (really, as Doug
>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>> indicated, a complex system of ontologies, managed and related via the
>>>>>>>> Microtheory construct). There is also the language, CycL, itself, and
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> implementation. There is the inference engine, with its own complexity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> theorem prover, heuristic modules, and implemented strategies for
>>>>>>>> choosing
>>>>>>>> what to pursue when. There are a variety of interfaces. The ontology
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> constantly evolving, and there are components and subsystems dealing
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> truth maintenance, bookkeeping and provenance, traceability, testing,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many of these subsystems were well-established, any many continuing to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> developed, when I started working on Cyc at 1998. One thing I am often
>>>>>>>> struck by is that many of the issues that appear as new or emergent in
>>>>>>>> semantic technologies now were already being addressed in thoughtful
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> sophisticated ways in the Cyc system then. Cyc still has challenges,
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> course, but there is much to learn from the many person years of
>>>>>>>> experience,
>>>>>>>> and multiple rounds of implementation, learning, and revision, done on
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> of these fronts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are also some technical folks at Cycorp with enough Systems
>>>>>>>> Engineering background that they might be especially able to
>>>>>>>> contribute to
>>>>>>>> the summit topic. I recall the Robert Kahlert was always especially
>>>>>>>> interested in what Systems Engineering methods and Ontology might, or
>>>>>>>> ought
>>>>>>>> to, have to contribute to one another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either way (that is, an application of Cyc or Cyc as a System), I
>>>>>>>> think a
>>>>>>>> Cyc-based use case would be good to include in Track 4. Two cents for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Track 4 champions to consider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amanda
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 14:43, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, I think some of the Cyc folks are participating in this
>>>>>>>>> Summit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>>>>> Bennett
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:48 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would be good. It would also be valuable to unpack the
>>>>>>>>> stated disconnect between the ontology and IT in terms of
>>>>>>>>> ontology quality / QA related issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dealing with the connection or otherwise between ontologies and
>>>>>>>>> IT is something I think is relevant to a lot of people. All too
>>>>>>>>> often the push towards the use of semantic technologies becomes a
>>>>>>>>> push to do everything as triple stores and semantic queries,
>>>>>>>>> without considering the use of ontologies within conventional
>>>>>>>>> technology environments, I think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 05:00, John F. Sowa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In reviewing the discussions about Big Systems, I noticed that the
>>>>>>>>>> world's biggest formal ontology, which has been used in conjunction
>>>>>>>>>> with very large commercial applications hasn't been discussed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is Cyc. It was founded in 1984 as part of MCC and spun off
>>>>>>>>>> as an independent company, CycCorp, in 1994. They had 28 years
>>>>>>>>>> of continuous development. After the first 25 years, they had
>>>>>>>>>> devoted 1000 person years (a full person millennium!) to the
>>>>>>>>>> development. They also have a long list of publications that
>>>>>>>>>> are available for download: http://cyc.com/cyc/technology/pubs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we really want to know what a large ontology system can do and
>>>>>>>>>> how it can be used in conjunction with mainstream IT, I suggest
>>>>>>>>>> that we devote an entire track of the Ontology Summit to Cyc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Among the many participants in Ontolog Forum, Doug Foxvog and
>>>>>>>>>> Amanda Vizedom were employed at Cyc. They could present talks
>>>>>>>>>> about their experience at Cyc, what lessons they learned from it,
>>>>>>>>>> and how their work at Cyc compares to projects that they have
>>>>>>>>>> worked on since them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would expect them to give a balanced treatment of the strengths
>>>>>>>>>> and weaknesses of Cyc. Many of us have had many criticisms
>>>>>>>>>> about various aspects of Cyc, but any AI company that can
>>>>>>>>>> stay in business for 28 years is a major achievement. We
>>>>>>>>>> should try to learn as much as we can from their experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another person who used Cyc extensively back in the 1990s is
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Anderson. He and his group worked on DoD projects that used
>>>>>>>>>> Cyc to develop ontologies and applications. As a result of that
>>>>>>>>>> experience, they started their own company, Ontology Works,
>>>>>>>>>> which has more recently been renamed High Fleet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to hear a talk by Bill about his experiences with
>>>>>>>>>> Cyc and how that led him and his colleagues to found their
>>>>>>>>>> own company. It would be very interesting to hear a comparison
>>>>>>>>>> of the applications and methodologies used with Cyc and the
>>>>>>>>>> experience they have had at Ontology Works and High Fleet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would expect these talks to cover both positive and negative
>>>>>>>>>> aspects of Cyc. But it would also be good to invite somebody
>>>>>>>>>> who is currently working at Cyc to present their views. As
>>>>>>>>>> an example, one of the biggest applications of Cyc is at
>>>>>>>>>> the Cleveland Clinic:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>http://www.cyc.com/technology/whitepapers_dir/Harnessing_Cyc_to_Answer_Clincal_Researchers_ad_hoc_Queries.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also spoke briefly to somebody from the Cleveland Clinic, who
>>>>>>>>>> said that there was a large "disconnect" between the methods
>>>>>>>>>> used for Cyc and the mainstream IT methods that their programmers
>>>>>>>>>> were familiar with. That is a very serious issue that has
>>>>>>>>>> plagued many AI projects, and I'd like to hear about the issues
>>>>>>>>>> from both ends: the Cyc personnel and some knowledgeable IT
>>>>>>>>>> developer at the Cleveland Clinic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the kind of track that would be highly informative
>>>>>>>>>> for people with a background in either or both mainstream IT
>>>>>>>>>> and AI technology. And it's hard to find any ontology project
>>>>>>>>>> that is bigger than Cyc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mike Bennett
>>>>>>>>> Director
>>>>>>>>> Hypercube Ltd.
>>>>>>>>> 89 Worship Street
>>>>>>>>> London EC2A 2BF
>>>>>>>>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
>>>>>>>>> Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
>>>>>>>>> www.hypercube.co.uk
>>>>>>>>> Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>>> Community Wiki:
>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
|