Hi Doug, (01)
On 08/02/2012 18:59, doug foxvog wrote:
> On Tue, February 7, 2012 13:20 Mike Bennett<mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> That raises some deep philosophical questions for emergent,
>> natural systems. Do these have a "Purpose"? If you believe in a
>> Creator as described in most Feudal-era belief systems, that
>> Creator created natural things with a purpose, but if you don't,
>> you don't. Clearly there are people both sides of that divide.
> If we distinguish "Purpose" from "Function", then the question of
> "Purpose" need not be asked. I distinguish "Purpose" with an intent,
> while restricting "Function" to capabilities. (02)
That is a good approach, and admirably demonstrated in the Cyc
examples below. (03)
The question, from a Quality Assurance point of view, is how does
one ensure that thse distinctions are consistently made by modelers? (04)
>
> Cyc has a ternary predicate #$behaviorCapable to specify that an
> object can play a certain role in a certain type of situation, and
> more specific predicates, #$primaryFunction,
> #$intendedBehaviorCapable, and #$intendedPrimaryFunction to
> move from function/capability to purpose. For "natural systems"
> ontologies can model capabilities and functions without specifying
> that they are purposeful/intended. For manufactured systems,
> the intent can be asserted as well. As long as rules are appropriately
> defined at the correct level (capability/function/intent) systems can
> be described without raising the philosophical issues. (05)
Indeed. Given that Cyc has the cability of asserting functions
with or without intent, how does one ensure that modelers of new
material do not bring their inbuilt (and perhaps unquestioned /
unstated) philosophical issues along for the ride? (06)
>
> Cyc also has a type-level ternary predicate, #$biologicalFunction,
> that allows for statements such as (#$biologicalFunction #$Fin
> #$Swimming-Underwater #$providerOfMotiveForce) . This predicate
> "means that instances of the organism or body part, BLO-TYPE, are
> able to act as a ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE and such
> situations naturally occur for such #$BiologicalLivingObjects. In a
> creationist microtheory, this would be an #$intendedBehaviorCapable
> for such instances." (07)
Interesting - I see this is the exact text from Cyc. Does this
mean that Cyc is agnostic as to which microtheories people
subscribe to, and allows them to model according to their own
microtheory? Would that not cause inconsistencies in the overall
model, or can the microtheories be recognized and clearly
partitioned as such? Are the microtheories of each part of the
model explicitly stated, and if so, in what form? (reading on, I
see this is answered at the very end of this email; more
generally then, I would ask this of any ontology other than Cyc). (08)
>
> For systems engineering, the type-level functions seem important
> for describing both required roles for components and properties
> of parts considered for playing those roles, while the individual
> level functions describe whether a specific component is faulty.
>
> Here are the #$comments from OpenCyc for
> #$behaviorCapable:
> "The predicate behaviorCapable is used to indicate that an object (an
> instance of SomethingExisting) can play a role (an instance of
> BinaryRolePredicate) in a type of situation (a specialization of
> Situation). (behaviorCapable OBJ SIT-TYPE ROLE) means that OBJ is able to
> play ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE. Note that OBJ may or may not
> have been designed to function in that way (see the specializations of
> behaviorCapable, primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable). Moreover,
> unlike capableOf (q.v.), behaviorCapable does not imply that OBJ can
> unquestionably act in that way in every such situation, since extrinsic
> factors may prevent it from doing so; for example, if OBJ is a tool, it
> may be in the wrong location or operated by a person lacking the requisite
> skills. Examples: (intended capability) a hammer is behaviorCapable
> [should be intendedPrimaryFunction] of being the deviceUsed in instances
> of HammeringANail; (unintended capability) an inner tube is capable of
> being the deviceUsed in instances of people FloatingInLiquid." (09)
Again it is clear that Cyc has put considerable thought into
these questions. Is this thinking formally set down somewhere
independently of these comments or are modelers expected to read
and absorb the required thinking from the comments? For
ontologies in general, how are these kinds of questions set out,
or is there a training requirement for all persons who are to
extend or adapt a given ontology, such that they must have
understood all the available predicates before attempting to add
anything to the model? I don't know if there are any good answers
to this but I think it's a point worth considering in any new
ontology project. It is also a point I am considering now in
relation to our FIBO ontology. (010)
>
> #$primaryFunction:
> "A specialization of behaviorCapable (q.v.) that is used to specify a
> primary or particularly important function that a given object serves.
> (primaryFunction OBJ SITTYPE ROLE) means that the primary function of OBJ
> is to play ROLE in situations of the type SITTYPE. OBJ might be a natural
> object that has a primary function (e.g the primary function of a heart is
> to pump blood), or OBJ might be an artifact that was intentionally
> designed to have the primary function that it does (e.g. the primary
> function of a wall clock is to show the current time of day). For cases of
> the latter sort, consider the more specialized predicate
> intendedPrimaryFunction. Note that, while most things have one primary
> function, some have more than one. For example, one might claim that the
> two primary functions of a lung are to take in oxygen and to expell carbon
> dioxide. For things that have only one main function, consider the
> specialization soleFunction." (011)
"consider"? or "you shall use"? How does one ensure that the most
appropriate predicates are used in new material added to the
ontology? Again I raise this question generally, not just in
respect of Cyc. (012)
How does one ensure that new material added to an ontology makes
the most appropriate use of the predicates available? (013)
>
> #$intendedBehaviorCapable:
> "... (intendedBehaviorCapable ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that (i)
> ARTIFACT can play ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE (see
> behaviorCapable) and (ii) ARTIFACT is intended by its designer to play
> ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE. Note that a given artifact
> can be intended to be capable of serving more than one function. ..." (014)
As a matter of interest, do the "intended" predicates have some
link to the party or entity which is the "designer" i.e. that
which does the intending? (015)
>
> #$intendedPrimaryFunction:
> "A specialization of both primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable
> (qq.v.) that is used to indicate the primary or typical use a given
> artifact (see Artifact-Generic) was designed to serve.
> (intendedPrimaryFunction ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that:
>
> (i) the primary function of ARTIFACT is to play ROLE in situations of the
> type SITTYPE and
> (ii) ARTIFACT was intended by its designer primarily to play ROLE in
> SITTYPEs. ..."
>
>> Where this has some practical impact is when you look at medical
>> pathology, which implicitly replaces a directed, goal-oriented
>> Creator with a similarly directed, goal-oriented Evolution.
> I don't see this at all. Medical pathology describes functions, even
> though people may (imo sloppily) use terminology regarding purposes. (016)
Well I could argue my corner in this but this is not really the
forum to resolve such issues. What interests me for the present
discussion is not the resolution of the question but the
existence of the question. (017)
However, you are right, a lot of this is to do with sloppy use of
terminology. Perhaps a clearer example is when biologists try to
explain things to a lay public and inevitably use terminology
which seems to imply that evolution is a directed force, when
they know and we know that it is not. Part of the problem there
is that our Western European languages have arisen in a somewhat
theistic environment and lack the vocabulary for concepts like
"the pressures to which this [thing/behavior] arose in response
are...". So we have to work with the languages we have. (018)
>
>> This of course is not the evolution recognized by evolutionary
>> theorists, but it is clearly implied by the language of
>> pathology, in which there is only ever one "right" way to be,
>> many "wrong" ways which deviate from this.
> Example? If you understand the vocabulary as dealing with
> Function instead of Purpose (as distinguished above), this
> "rightness" and "wrongness" becomes merely (in)capabilities of
> individuals to match the functions and capabilities that (019)
This distinction (very clearly articulated in Cyc) goes a long
way towards addressing the question. (020)
>
>> This leads to
>> absurdities like asking the logically inevitable question of
>> whether left-handedness is pathological.
> Hmm?
> "In medicine, the term pathological means relting to, involving or
> caused by disease."
> -- The Probert Encyclopaedia of Medicine
>
> "1. Of or relating to pathology.
> 2. Relating to or caused by disease."
> -- American Heritage Medical Dictionary
>
> "Disease related"
> -- Int'l Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
>
>
>> We all know it is not, but the logic in which pathology is framed
>> implies that it is.
> I'm not sure what definition of "pathological" you are referring to.
> It does not seem to fit under a standard medical definition. (021)
Fair enough. I see that your definitions relate specifically to
disease and not to dysfunction more generally as I had always
assumed. (022)
Like I said, what interests me for the current discussion is the
ontology quality questions that arise from the possible existence
of different interpretive frameworks. (023)
For instance, suppose you have a team of people working on an
ontology that touches on concepts which include drugs, psychiatry
and so on. The question arises: "What are we to do about that
chap in Cubicle Three who believes that people should be able to
obtain whatever drugs they want without first having to have
something 'wrong' with them?" (024)
That is to say, there is someone working on the ontology who is
working from a different set of principles - a different
microtheory. Is this a personnel problem or a quality assurance
problem? (025)
I would argue that it should be possible to set out the
microtheory to which the ontology is to comply, and also
(standard QA again) to have mechanisms in place to ensure that
the output of anyone working on the project complies with that
microtheory. How is this best achieved? (026)
The question becomes further complicated if the development of
the ontology is an ongoing activity, with changes to be made
against tight time-scales. Then much of the QA has to happen
after the event, i.e. more of a "gardening" approach, where
someone has to go through material that has been created, and
ensure that it remains consistent with one single unifying theory
of the matter in the domain of discourse. (027)
This might be a very informal arrangement, but there needs to be
some process loop in place which ensures that consumers of the
ontology can have confidence that there are no odd surprises or
inconsistencies lurking within it. No doubt much of this can be
done with consistency checking. Can all of it? I don't know.
Again, something to think about. (028)
Let's take an example from my own area. There are people who have
come to the conclusion that all financial instruments can be
represented semantically simply as sets of cashflows. This is
true but incomplete in my view. Sometimes the "cashflow only"
modelers will end up modeling imaginary extra instruments which
make up the equivalent behavior of a discrete term in some
complex instrument (for example modeling a capped interest
payment term as an equivalent separate deal which yields the same
cashflow behavior in the portfolio of the holder). Cashflow is
one set of facts about an instrument, and one way of classifying
instruments. From a risk management point of view, different
facts about an instrument are more relevant and a different set
of classifications would be appropriate. For an ontology which
supports more than one business use case, we would need to model
all of these facts and each of these possible sets of
classification hierarchies. (029)
How then do we deal with ontology modelers who are convinced that
cashflow is the only thing? That is, how do we (a) communicate
the overall principles of our ontology, and (b) verify that they
have modeled according to those principles without bringing their
own microtheory to the table? (030)
I don't know the answers either. I hope this is a better example
of the problem I am trying to describe here. (031)
>
>> So people have to work around the unchallenged but incorrect world
>> view whereby there was some intention in how the system of a
>> human body and mind were intended to be, by some intending agent.
> If you want to model it, model it in a social context. Such models are
> not needed, useful, or appropriate in a medical context. (032)
Indeed. But where does the social context begin and end? In my
example of the troublemaker in Cubicle Three, I suspect there are
busines contexts in which his or her different outlook on the
world might impact some real ontology, for example in the
(social?) context of prescription. (033)
>
>> The only reason I bring this up is that in looking at an ontology
>> for a "system" which is an emergent, natural system one therefore
>> has to deal with, not what are the "Right" and "Wrong"
>> ontological views of these things, but what is the required
>> ontological commitment for a given ontology for a given emergent
>> system.
> One should certainly clarify the context in which the system is
> being defined. One can have different models (theories) of the
> role that different aspects of a system play in different contexts. (034)
Agreed. If this can be formally recorded in some suitable way,
the problem is addressed. (035)
>
>> You might have two or more ontologies of the same natural
>> system (such as the body) written according to different world
>> views and different ontological commitments.
> Sure.
>
>> One of those
>> ontologies may comply with the definition of "System" which you
>> gave; another may not. A third may ensure that the ontological
>> commitment is framed in such as way as to not expose those
>> questions at all.
> An agnostic context could specify basic theories that all interested
> parties agree upon. Narrower contexts could have their own
> contrasting theories, but use the same agnostic context that
> is not in dispute. (036)
I think this is the key to the whole thing. This is a lot like
John Sowa's description of how to apply a high level lattice of
theories, such that the concepts in the lattice are
underspecified, and the narrower contexts introduce their own
views of the domain of discourse. (John, correct me if I have
mischaracterized this). (037)
I wonder also whether this approach can be employed when the
differences between approaches to ontology are more fundamental,
for example 4D versus the rest, or extensional versus intensional
approaches. But that is more about the approach to ontology than
about one's view of the world being modeled, so perhaps those are
separate questions. (038)
Again, what I'm curious about is what can be formally recorded
and defined, and how one is able to ensure that it is
consistently applied. (039)
>
>> The interesting question is, how do you quantify those
>> commitments and world views, such that you can verify whether
>> the ontology of that natural system is fit for the purpose for which
>> it was intended. That is, how do you do quality assurance on
>> ontologies of natural systems, with reference to how they are framed?
> By reifying the contexts and stating their assumptions (postulates).
> I would note that the ontology itself is an artifactual system and thus
> has purposes, not just functions and capabilities. (040)
Agreed. I wonder what is the best way in which to state those
assumptions? Presumably at the top level of the ontology (or a
given branch of the ontology) itself? (041)
Good point about the purpose of the ontology. I think where this
becomes particularly important is when you are creating an
operational ontology for some specific application. This might
take a sub-set of some broader ontology which defines all the
business concepts but has too many different terms and
perspectives to make a practical, decidable ontology. Extracting
the sub-set of the ontology which is appropriate for a given
application, is driven by what is the business purpose of that
application (for instance you might extract only a single
taxonomic hierarchy out of an ontology which contains several; or
you may extract only those terms which are represented by
operational data and leave out those terms which are relative,
those which give legal grounding and meaning to the concepts but
have no data, and so on). But I digress. (042)
>
> Cyc uses the predicate #$domain assertions for this purpose:
>
> "(domainAssumptions MT PROP) means that the microtheory MT
> has the proposition PROP as a domain assumption, which means
> that all assertions explicitly made in MT assume that PROP is true.
>
> For example,
> (domainAssumptions ChristianTrinityMt
> (equals JesusChrist GodTheSon)). " (043)
This is great. So there is a formal mechanism within Cyc, with
which to make explicit any number of domain-specific assertions
about the world? (044)
Would that other ontologies had this, or had some formal
requirement to make statements of this form. Otherwise I fear
that a lot of the stuff which has been thought about and made
specific in Cyc is not thought about and will not be made
specific in other ontologies. There is nothing in the ontology
languages themselves to make people do this, is there? (045)
As I think we can all agree, in any technical development project
it is the unspoken, undocumented and unquestioned assumptions
which will come back to bite us. (046)
Thanks for this. (047)
Mike (048)
>
> -- doug f
>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On 07/02/2012 17:54, David Price wrote:
>>> INCOSE says the 'system' in 'systems engineering' means:
>>>
>>> - an integrated set of elements, subsystems, or assemblies that
>>> accomplish
>>> a defined objective. These elements include products (hardware,
>>> software,
>>> firmware), processes, people, information, techniques,
>>> facilities, services,
>>> and other support elements. (INCOSE) An example would be an air
>>> transportation system.
>>>
>>> System of system is then:
>>>
>>> System-of-systems applies to a system-of-interest whose system
>>> elements are themselves systems; typically these entail large
>>> scale inter-disciplinary problems with multiple, heterogeneous,
>>> distributed systems.
>>>
>>> and system of interest is:
>>>
>>> System-of-interest the system whose life cycle is under
>>> consideration
>>>
>>> ISO/IEC 15288:2008 Systems engineering -- System life-cycle
>>> processes says:
>>>
>>> - a combination of interacting elements organized to achieve
>>> one or more
>>> stated purposes
>>>
>>> FWIW I happen to be in the middle of making a SKOS
>>> instantiation of the INCOSE SE Handbook terms and definitions
>>> for a NIST investigation.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 2/7/2012 5:42 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
>>>> Surely a system is something for which there are things which
>>>> have part-hood relationships to that thing. Having parts would
>>>> be what distinguishes a system (at this most general level)
>>>> from a bunch of stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Just a suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2012 17:25, joseph simpson wrote:
>>>>> The first step in this process is defining a system.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can not define a system then you can not define a
>>>>> complex system or a system of systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I still wonder if we have developed distinction criteria
>>>>> for a system.
>>>>>
>>>>> (A "system of systems" is by definition a system.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have fun,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM, AzamatAbdoullaev
>>>>> <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "We've learned that our companies, our cities and our
>>>>> world are complex systems-indeed, systems of systems":
>>>>>
>http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/overview/ideas/index.html?lnk=ussph2.12
>>>>> I still wonder if we have developed the distinction
>>>>> criteria for the complex systems and the systems of systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* joseph simpson<mailto:jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> *To:* Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>>>>> <mailto:ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 03, 2012 9:56 PM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re:
>>>>> [ontology-summit][BigSystemsandSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>>>>
>>>>> Yuriy:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the name of this track is Big Systems and
>>>>> Systems Engineering this topic fits under the topic
>>>>> of mathematics (a very big system).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, engineering in general is a bit different
>>>>> and systems engineering is even more different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Engineering is the act of applying mathematics and
>>>>> scientific principles to the solution of practical
>>>>> problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, math is a tool used by engineers to solve problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there are systems science and metasystems
>>>>> methodology that set the context for the application
>>>>> of systems engineering.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is little or no magic involved in these well
>>>>> defined approaches and processes for designing,
>>>>> developing, deploying and operating large-scale systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as Arthur C. Clarke detailed in his three
>>>>> laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
>>>>> indistinguishable from magic."
>>>>>
>>>>> In my mind we are discussing a very advanced
>>>>> technology that integrates large stores of data,
>>>>> information and technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not magic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care and have fun,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/2/3 Yuriy Milov<qdone@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>> If a () system of () systems exists then a (very
>>>>> (simple)) system is still a system of (very (very
>>>>> (simple))) system.
>>>>> It's amaizing to know a very simple system which
>>>>> demonstrates very complex behavior. This is a
>>>>> fantastic gift. We do not deserv it - but we have
>>>>> it! :)
>>>>> We could think that the natural numbers
>>>>> (1,2,3,4,5,6,7.. so on) is simple. Are we sure?
>>>>> Let's choose a natural number n1 (free,
>>>>> spontaneously, without any reasons - just any of
>>>>> natural numbers) and then let's choose again any
>>>>> natural number n2 (free, spontaneously, without
>>>>> any reasons - just any of natural numbers).
>>>>> The more freedom of choice we have - the more
>>>>> chances that n2>n1
>>>>> Absolute freedom of choice makes n2>n1 guaranteed
>>>>> The reason of this is that there is no a biggest
>>>>> natural number (that is also an amazing fact, by
>>>>> the way)
>>>>> We (people) are finite (in space and time) pretty
>>>>> simple entities. How can we understand infinity?
>>>>> The answer is - because ae are able to play with
>>>>> a freedom of choice - thanks for the great gift -
>>>>> the natural numbers :)
>>>>> The logistic equations and cellular automata are
>>>>> magic wands whaich transform complex system of
>>>>> systems in a simple set 1,2,3 and so on :)
>>>>> Yuri
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* joseph simpson
>>>>> <mailto:jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> *To:* Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>>>>> <mailto:ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 03, 2012 3:29 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit]
>>>>> [BigSystemsandSystemsEngineering]Systemofsystems
>>>>>
>>>>> The logistic equation is a math model of the
>>>>> behavior of a living system.
>>>>>
>>>>> A very simple system can demonstrate very
>>>>> complex behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my view this is another example of general
>>>>> systems theory (GST) where a specific branch
>>>>> of science was generalized into mathematics
>>>>> and applied in many places.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, this is behavior of a simple system,
>>>>> not a system of systems or an industrial system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have fun,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Yuriy Milov
>>>>> <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jack,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the metod is to follow the
>>>>> cascade of bifurcation which has the
>>>>> universal mesure (a sort of the delta
>>>>> number which can be got from
>>>>> experiment/experience)
>>>>>
>>>>> The magics here is our ability to
>>>>> distinguish the related and unrelated
>>>>> events - where the bifurcated branchs
>>>>> (splitted paths) belongs one tree
>>>>> (one way)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if it is too vague methafora - I do
>>>>> some urgent job right now
>>>>>
>>>>> Yuri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Joe Simpson
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent From My DROID!!
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <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
>>>>> <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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Joe Simpson
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent From My DROID!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Managing Director and Consultant
>>> TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
>>> UK +44 7788 561308
>>> US +1 336-283-0606
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/
>
> (049)
--
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 (050)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (051)
|