TKU.
This one exchange makes the time spent in the Summit well worthwhile.
Jack Ring
On Feb 11, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Mike Bennett wrote: (01)
> Hi Doug,
>
> 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.
>
> That is a good approach, and admirably demonstrated in the Cyc
> examples below.
>
> The question, from a Quality Assurance point of view, is how does
> one ensure that thse distinctions are consistently made by modelers?
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>>
>> 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 #$intendedBehaviorCapable
>> for such instances."
>
> Interesting - I see this is the exact text from Cyc. Does this
> mean that Cyc is agnostic as to which microtheories people
> subscribe to, and allows them to model according to their own
> microtheory? Would that not cause inconsistencies in the overall
> model, or can the microtheories be recognized and clearly
> partitioned as such? Are the microtheories of each part of the
> model explicitly stated, and if so, in what form? (reading on, I
> see this is answered at the very end of this email; more
> generally then, I would ask this of any ontology other than Cyc).
>
>
>>
>> For systems engineering, the type-level functions seem important
>> for describing both required roles for components and properties
>> of parts considered for playing those roles, while the individual
>> level functions describe whether a specific component is faulty.
>>
>> Here are the #$comments from OpenCyc for
>> #$behaviorCapable:
>> "The predicate behaviorCapable is used to indicate that an object (an
>> instance of SomethingExisting) can play a role (an instance of
>> BinaryRolePredicate) in a type of situation (a specialization of
>> Situation). (behaviorCapable OBJ SIT-TYPE ROLE) means that OBJ is able to
>> play ROLE in a situation of type SIT-TYPE. Note that OBJ may or may not
>> have been designed to function in that way (see the specializations of
>> behaviorCapable, primaryFunction and intendedBehaviorCapable). Moreover,
>> unlike capableOf (q.v.), behaviorCapable does not imply that OBJ can
>> unquestionably act in that way in every such situation, since extrinsic
>> factors may prevent it from doing so; for example, if OBJ is a tool, it
>> may be in the wrong location or operated by a person lacking the requisite
>> skills. Examples: (intended capability) a hammer is behaviorCapable
>> [should be intendedPrimaryFunction] of being the deviceUsed in instances
>> of HammeringANail; (unintended capability) an inner tube is capable of
>> being the deviceUsed in instances of people FloatingInLiquid."
>
> Again it is clear that Cyc has put considerable thought into
> these questions. Is this thinking formally set down somewhere
> independently of these comments or are modelers expected to read
> and absorb the required thinking from the comments? For
> ontologies in general, how are these kinds of questions set out,
> or is there a training requirement for all persons who are to
> extend or adapt a given ontology, such that they must have
> understood all the available predicates before attempting to add
> anything to the model? I don't know if there are any good answers
> to this but I think it's a point worth considering in any new
> ontology project. It is also a point I am considering now in
> relation to our FIBO ontology.
>
>>
>> #$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."
>
> "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.
>
> How does one ensure that new material added to an ontology makes
> the most appropriate use of the predicates available?
>
>>
>> #$intendedBehaviorCapable:
>> "... (intendedBehaviorCapable ARTIFACT SITTYPE ROLE) means that (i)
>> ARTIFACT can play ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE (see
>> behaviorCapable) and (ii) ARTIFACT is intended by its designer to play
>> ROLE in situations or events of type SITTYPE. Note that a given artifact
>> can be intended to be capable of serving more than one function. ..."
>
> As a matter of interest, do the "intended" predicates have some
> link to the party or entity which is the "designer" i.e. that
> which does the intending?
>
>>
>> #$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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>>
>>> 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
>
> This distinction (very clearly articulated in Cyc) goes a long
> way towards addressing the question.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Fair enough. I see that your definitions relate specifically to
> disease and not to dysfunction more generally as I had always
> assumed.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?"
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> I don't know the answers either. I hope this is a better example
> of the problem I am trying to describe here.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Agreed. If this can be formally recorded in some suitable way,
> the problem is addressed.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>>
>> 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)). "
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Mike
>
>>
>> -- 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/ (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)
|