|
In that case, Jack, I think you might like [Quality] conversation kick-off email which is coming shortly (currently in sanity-check / draft review between co-champions). As it happens, it is chock-full of questions. Why? Because we want to hear, and think we could all benefit from hearing, many people's answers! Watch this space ...
Best,
Amanda
On Jan 30, 2012 11:31 PM, "Jack Park" < jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|