I agree, but we had to give folks some knowledge. (01)
This could be continued on the Ontolog Forum, more generally. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012
Subject: [ontology-summit] Fwd: Ontologies are not algorithms (04)
Dear Leo, Jack and All, (05)
I agree with Nicola's
(ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012-02/msg00007.html ) (06)
> [NG] ... In any way, this is not a topic to be addressed in this summit.
> So, if people are still interested, I would suggest them to move the
>discussion
> to the general Ontolog list. (07)
... and am moving this conversation to the [ontolog-forum] mailing list. (08)
ALL: please pick up the conversation from there (if folks would still
want to delve in the subject matter). (09)
Thanks in advance. =ppy (010)
p.s. if you are not subscribed to the [ontolog-forum] list (i.e. not a
member of the Ontolog community,) please refer to membership details
at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
-- (011)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not algorithms
[was: Ontolgizing rain & snow]
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (012)
And by the way, rules do the heavy-lifting in reasoning over
ontologies and their instances. But rules (axioms, inference rules,
consequence relations) are just as declarative as ontologies, i.e.,
ontologies expressed in a logic, thereby being a "logical theory", use
the declarative apparatus of logic. (013)
So the transformation I spoke of are transformations from one
declarative representation to another (mostly or entirely) declarative
representation. Otherwise, humans do all the programming imperatively,
looking only at the ontologies, conceptual models, conceptual schemas
as "guidance". And from that process, there are many algorithms that
could be created, perhaps infinitely many, depending on the
space/complexity of the computation. (014)
I hope this helps to clarify things. (015)
Thanks, (016)
Leo (017)
From: Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:27 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not algorithms [was:
Ontolgizing rain & snow] (018)
Jack, (019)
Algorithms are ways to do things. How. (020)
Ontologies, as a subclass of declarative methods, are ways to describe
things. What. (021)
>From an ontology, one can spawn multiple algorithms that use the
ontology, but this requires a set of transformations from the
declarative to the imperative. And it will be multiple, because for
any statement of what to do there are many ways how to do it. (022)
If you are working in a declarative paradigm, then the way to do it is
is to apply declarative transformations as far as you can, to get
close to a runtime how that preserves the what as much as possible. (023)
E.g., from a first-order ontology, you use knowledge compilation
techniques (examples: reduce to Horn Logic approximations, use
implicants/implicatures, etc.; there are a range of tools available,
but this is another partial research thread). Or you simply use a
first-order reasoner that uses the ontology directly; however, FOL
reasoners will be slower than other reasoners, because they deal with
more expressive logical expressions. (024)
Logic programming (Prolog, Answer Set Programming), by circumscribing
the FOL syntax, along with potentially using some non-declarative
constructs (the "cut" operator, ordering restrictions, a form of
negation that is not quite logical, i.e., negation by finite failure),
etc., can closely preserve the ontology and approximate its
declarative entailments, etc., in more efficient runtime reasoning. (025)
But if you want to transform an ontology to an imperative algorithm:
good luck. Mostly these transformations are done by human programmers.
One can talk about semantics-preserving programs, etc., but it's
pretty much ad hoc-land. One can annotate programs (like
"documentation") as to what the imperative constructs are supposed to
mean, but it is really a very loose correlation. (026)
That's the difference. (027)
Thanks, (028)
Leo (029)
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack
Ring
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:48 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontologies are not algorithms [was:
Ontolgizing rain & snow] (030)
Dear Nicola, (031)
Thanks for the response. (032)
I am aware of several kinds of computational ontologies. I was
interested in a specific example of what you had in mind when
declaring that an ontology is not equivalent to an algorithm. (033)
Ontologies that I have seen express semantic equivalences and other
relationships. Some are even loaded with first order predicates that
look very much like spaghetti code (which I thought was banned in the
1980's). (034)
However, I am not interested in arguing the point. The simple fact is
that systems and systems engineering need semantic transformers. If
ontologies don't do semantic transforms (e.g. AP233) then there may be
some residual utility in ontologies in Big Systems but not the degree
I had hoped. (035)
Jack Ring (036)
ps. 'algorithm' predates computer science by several centuries. (037)
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Nicola Guarino wrote: (038)
Dear Jack, (039)
sorry for this late answer to your request. There are
various definitions of (computational) ontologies adopted by the
community, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find them, as well as
actual examples of ontologies. (040)
Speaking for myself, I spent a good fraction of my
research career trying to clarify, in a rigorous way, what a
computational ontology is (see for instance the paper by Daniel Oberle
and myself on the Handbook of Ontologies, 2nd edition). Basically, I
agree with the most popular definition "An ontology is a specification
of a conceptualisation", which requires however a careful
clarification of what a conceptualisation is (but this is a long
story, although discussed in various papers). In logical terms, an
ontology is just a logical theory expressing a set of meaning
postulates. (041)
In my opinion, none of the current definitions of a
computational ontology is compatible with the idea that ontologies are
algorithms. If you want to use classing terms of computer science, you
can perhaps compare an ontology to a data structure, but not to an
algorithm. (042)
In any way, this is not a topic to be addressed in this
summit. So, if people are still interested, I would suggest them to
move the discussion to the general Ontolog list. (043)
Best, (044)
Nicola (045)
On 31 Jan 2012, at 04:14, Jack Ring wrote: (046)
Gee, I made a very explicit statement in my brief last week ---- that
ontology is algorithm --- and you and Nicola immediately and clearly
disagreed. I followed up with a request foer an example; of an
ontology so we could get down to specifics but have not yet received
one. Meanwhile an example of Cyc ontology appeared and I gave some
specifics from a systemist viewpoint.
If you think that emergence, a very important phenomenon in systems,
and system models is not a core issue for ontologists to deal with
then I guess the intersection of SE and ontology in this forum may
turn out to be only the transform from drawing (pump 102) to purchase
order (sku2058), i.e., engineering of systems. (047)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (048)
Jack, it's not that this is not interesting, and I get the metaphor,
but everyone needs to make the metaphor explicit. Otherwise, it seems
we are veering all over the place and not focusing on our themes for
THIS Summit. The next summit or a future summit can address
human-nature co-systems, and even this summit can, where it is
appropriate to our focus. (049)
Make it explicit what the contribution is, focus. We simply don't have
the open-endedness of the whole Ontolog Forum, where nearly anything
and everything goes. (050)
Thanks, (051)
Leo (052)
-----Original Message----- (053)
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack
Ring (054)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:29 PM (055)
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion (056)
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolgizing rain & snow [was: Track 1&2
Joint Mission and Session Abstracts] (057)
Leo, (058)
Apologies for the ambiguities. The subject is not rain and snow. Those
are the metaphors. The subject is emergence and the special confusions
of triple-point systems. (059)
OBTW, perhaps ecologies are systems only in the minds of humans. if
you don't want to take up natural vs. human-imputed systems this year
so be it. However it is already a big confusion in the societal demand
for systems. For example sponsors do not know that more than 90% or
Mother Nature's experiments fail. (060)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (061)
Sure, human engineered systems also contain humans. That's what
systems engineering is all about. And teleological arguments do show
correspondences to human-engineered systems (function of the heart in
the human body). But remember we are addressing human-engineered
systems. Ecologies are systems and are wider than human-engineered
systems, but obviously also affect the latter. Perhaps ecologies,
especially human-influenced ecologies are super-systems, and we should
address these here, but I think we are veering off. (062)
I suggest just like we are not addressing natural ecologies, at least
not in this summit. Or at the least: not in this thread yet. We are
ontologizing rain and snow. (063)
Thanks, (064)
Leo (065)
-----Original Message----- (066)
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack
Ring (067)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:01 PM (068)
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion (069)
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolgizing rain & snow [was: Track 1&2
Joint Mission and Session Abstracts] (070)
I think you will have a difficult time explaining why natural systems
are not human-presumed systems. And closer to reality, yet, if human
engineered systems contain N humans as active components then what? (071)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (072)
Folks, this might be a discussion thread more appropriate for the more
general [ontolog-forum], since it doesn't really address human
engineered systems, but instead natural systems. (073)
What do you think? (074)
Thanks, (075)
Leo (076)
-----Original Message----- (077)
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack
Ring (078)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:24 PM (079)
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion (080)
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolgizing rain & snow [was: Track 1&2
Joint Mission and Session Abstracts] (081)
Doug, Thank you for this. As is probably obvious by now or will be by
the end of this message I am not a practicing ontologist. (082)
I am struck by several presumptions and gaps in the Cyc example.
Perhaps I just can't read right or perhaps these are not proper
ontology stuff. As I said in the last track, I am not sure I am
looking for ontology as the means for systemist interoperability.
Perhaps I seek some yet-to-be-conceived semiotic transformer. At any
rate, humor me regarding the following: (083)
The example doesn't say where rain comes from. Mentions clouds but
clouds are not rain or they wouldn't be "up there." (084)
I am looking for the notion of emergence. Rain happens after raindrops
occur. Why do raindrops occur? And why snowflakes rather than
raindrops? And why not mention fog as well? And Relative Humidity? (085)
OBTW, rain water is not fresh. Raindrops condense on particles, every
raindrop has one therefor rainwater is laden with particles
(especially ones resulting from cloud seeding). (086)
OBTW, Raindrops fall on me in Arizona while the sun is shining. No
storm evident. Just an occlusion of a low and high pressure trough
waaay up there. (087)
I am not trying to be smart alecky here. It is just that systems work
challenges you to think beyond the active entities and consider the
not's as well. Otherwise Unintended Consequences are born. (088)
I maliciously mentioned rain and snow because H2O has a triple point,
vapor, liquid, solid depending on pressure, temperature, etc., Not all
substances have such triple point. Methinks "SYSTEM" does which is the
root of much confusion therefore a challenge for ontologists. (089)
Thanks for your attention. (090)
Jack (091)
On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:58 AM, doug foxvog wrote: (092)
Matthew West wrote: (093)
I understand your view. How shall you handle rain and snow? (094)
Rain & snow refer to physical precipitation particles, the precipitation in (095)
bulk, the process that produces the precipitation, storms as events, and (096)
storms as objects. (097)
Cyc's representation of these different, but related things (leaving out (098)
comments and some additional statements) includes: (099)
(isa PrecipitationParticle ExistingObjectType) (0100)
(genls PrecipitationParticle Particle) (0101)
(genls PrecipitationParticle InanimateObject-Natural) (0102)
(isa RainProcess ProcessType) (0103)
(genls RainProcess PrecipitationProcess) (0104)
(isa SnowProcess ProcessType) (0105)
(genls SnowProcess PrecipitationProcess) (0106)
(isa Rainwater ExistingStuffType) (0107)
(genls Rainwater (LiquidFn Water-Fresh)) (0108)
(isa SnowMob ExistingStuffType) (0109)
(genls SnowMob (SolidFn Water)) (0110)
(isa Snowflake ExistingObjectType) (0111)
(genls Snowflake PrecipitationParticle) (0112)
(genls (MobFn Snowflake) SnowMob) (0113)
(isa Raindrop ExistingObjectType) (0114)
(genls Raindrop PrecipitationParticle) (0115)
(genls Raindrop Rainwater) (0116)
(relationAllExists outputsGenerated PrecipitationProcess (0117)
(MobFn PrecipitationParticle)) (0118)
(relationAllExists outputsGenerated RainProcess (MobFn Raindrop)) (0119)
(relationAllExists outputsGenerated SnowProcess (MobFn Snowflake)) (0120)
(isa StormAsObject ExistingObjectType) (0121)
(genls StormAsObject InanimateObject-Natural) (0122)
(relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky) (0123)
(isa RainStormAsObject ExistingObjectType) (0124)
(genls RainStormAsObject StormAsObject) (0125)
(relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky) (0126)
(relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject (MobFn Raindrop)) (0127)
(isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType) (0128)
(genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject) (0129)
(relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky) (0130)
(relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake)) (0131)
(not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject)) (0132)
(comment (0133)
(not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject)) (0134)
"A StormAsObject would include Duststorms, which don't (necessarily) (0135)
include precipitation.") (0136)
(relationExistsAll doneBy RainProcess RainStormAsObject) (0137)
(relationExistsAll doneBy SnowProcess SnowStormAsObject) (0138)
(isa StormAsEvent ExistingObjectType) (0139)
(genls StormAsEvent ImmediateWeatherProcess) (0140)
(isa RainStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType) (0141)
(genls RainStormAsEvent StormAsEvent) (0142)
(relationAllExists subprocesses RainStormAsEvent RainProcess) (0143)
(relationAllExists doneBy RainStormAsEvent RainStormAsObject) (0144)
(isa SnowStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType) (0145)
(genls SnowStormAsEvent StormAsEvent) (0146)
(relationAllExists subprocesses SnowStormAsEvent SnowProcess) (0147)
(relationAllExists doneBy SnowStormAsEvent SnowStormAsObject) (0148)
(isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType) (0149)
(genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject) (0150)
(relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake)) (0151)
Jack (0152)
On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Matthew West wrote: (0153)
The main problem here is one of different people using terms (0154)
differently. Hardly an ontological problem per se, but certainly a (0155)
problem that causes confusion in developing ontologies. (0156)
This is always a problem for ontologists. The different meanings have (0157)
to be teased apart. (0158)
Interestingly as a 4 dimensionalist I don't recognise endurants at all, (0159)
but I do recognise activities, physical objects, and participants. Under (0160)
this world view all individuals (including activities, physical objects (0161)
and participants) are spatiotemporal extents, and you discover that an (0162)
activity consists of its participants, where a participant is the state (0163)
of a physical object that participates in some activity. So I recognise (0164)
the things you talk about. However, I would assign the term "system" to (0165)
the physical object the participant is a state of. (0166)
I would not restrict the term "system" merely to physical objects. But (0167)
having multiple clearly defined concepts which different people use that word (0168)
for in different contexts, is fine. They just need different URIs. (0169)
-- doug (0170)
Regards (0171)
Matthew West (0172)
Information Junction (0173)
Tel: +44 1489 880185 (0174)
Mobile: +44 750 3385279 (0175)
Skype: dr.matthew.west (0176)
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0177)
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/ (0178)
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (0179)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in (0180)
England and Wales No. 6632177. (0181)
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, (0182)
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (0183)
... (0184)
_________________________________________________________________ (0185)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0186)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0187)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0188)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0189)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0190)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0191)
_________________________________________________________________ (0192)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0193)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0194)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0195)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0196)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0197)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0198)
_________________________________________________________________ (0199)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0200)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0201)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0202)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0203)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0204)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0205)
_________________________________________________________________ (0206)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0207)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0208)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0209)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0210)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0211)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0212)
_________________________________________________________________ (0213)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0214)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0215)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0216)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0217)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0218)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0219)
_________________________________________________________________ (0220)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0221)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0222)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0223)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0224)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0225)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0226)
_________________________________________________________________ (0227)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ (0228)
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (0229)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (0230)
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ (0231)
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 (0232)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (0233)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (0234)
*** WARNING *** old address guarino@xxxxxxxxxx not operational any more
new address is guarino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web site also changed to www.loa.istc.cnr.it. (0235)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Guarino
Head, Laboratory for Applied Ontology (LOA), ISTC-CNR
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies
National Research Council
Via alla Cascata, 56/C
38100 Povo (Trento), Italy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor in Chief, Applied Ontology (IOS Press)
www.applied-ontology.org (0236)
President, Int. Association for Ontology and its Applications (IAOA)
www.iaoa.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (0237)
office: +39 0461 314871 fax:
+39 0461 314875
secretary: +39 0461 314842-878
mobile: +39 338 980 3912
skype: nicolguar
web site: http://loa.istc.cnr.it (0238)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (0239)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (0240)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (0241)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (0242)
|