Ludger, (01)
I can't speak for Shoebottom's model, and I will leave that to him. (02)
NAICS is a taxonomy of industrial production activities and/or products. It
was developed (and is maintained) by statistical organizations for the purpose
of producing standard "nature of industry" labels for various statistical
measures. Those measures include total production, trade balance, economic
indicators, labor statistics, business census statistics, etc. The whole idea
is that a standard set of classifications, together with voluntary
classification by businesses of their own activities, allows statistics created
by different agencies to be comparable. You can compare workforce statistics
by industry with total industrial output by industry, because they use the same
classifications of "by industry". (03)
NAICS is a taxonomy. It only defines classes of industrial activity.
Conceptually, the NAICS classifications form a hierarchy under 'subclassOf'.
In the view of the NAICS, the instances of the classifications are 'industrial
activities'. The activities consume resources, involve workforce personnel,
and produce products and services. A given organization may be engaged in
activities in one or more different NAICS activity classifications, and it may
or may not be able to align its business units with these classifications. It
may be easy to relate some activities to locations, when the activity takes
place in a physical plant, for example, or more difficult, when one talks about
supply statistics or financial activities. So, the 10-employee firm that is
Johnson's Tool Works may have one location and ascribe all its business
activities to the Tool & Die category, while a firm like General Electric has
activities in 6 different NAICS classifications and 204 different locations. (04)
NAICS is an excellent example of designing an ontology for a purpose. (05)
If my purpose in creating a NAICS ontology is to support the modeling of
economic statistics, I will want to have properties like "activity
classification employs workforce size" or "activity classification produces
percentage of GDP". Statistics are gathered for the leaf classifications and
"rolled up" for the higher-level classifications. To make that possible in
OWL, the NAICS activity classifications must be A-boxes! There is only one
OWL Class: NAICS_Classification, and it is the domain of all those statistical
properties. (06)
If OTOH my purpose in creating a NAICS ontology is to classify actual industry
activity objects or participating organizations, then the NAICS Classifications
should probably be T-boxes, because the individual organizations will be the
A-boxes that are instances of the NAICS Classes. (07)
If I want to do both -- capture economic statistics by classification and
classify organizations and activities -- I need to make a "meta-model" of
sorts, in which both the NAICS Classifications and the Organizations,
Activities, etc., are all A-boxes. Then I need OWL properties like:
Organization participates_ in NAICS Classification, and Activity
is_an_instance_of NAICS Classification, and Classification is_a_subtype_of
Classification. That is, I need to model the individual classifications as
A-boxes, so as to assign statistics to each, as above, but I also want to
capture the instance to classification relationships of organizations and
activities. So I make OWL properties that are "instance of" and "subclass of"
between those A-boxes. And yes, the effect of this is that I lose the ability
of the tableaux reasoners to infer classifications in the usual way. But, I
can define the "subtype of" property between NAICS Classification A-boxes in
terms of the "instance of" property for NAICS Classifications, and I can state
the transitivity axiom for is_subtype_of (NAICS Classification,
NAICS_Classification). (The explicit modeling of concepts that would otherwise
be part of the OWL language itself, like instance_of and subtype_of, is similar
to the OMG "metamodel" concept -- a model of a modeling language, which is why
I used the term.) (08)
Now, in ISO Common Logic (CLIF), I can declare the NAICS Classifications to be
predicates (like OWL Classes) and at the same time use them as objects
(instances) in statistical relations. But if I do things like that, it
requires a much more sophisticated reasoner, and creates the possibility that
some desired inferences take forever if we don't set up the ontology just
right. If I constrain the usage to nothing more complex than the OWL
work-around above, it probably works well. (09)
All of this comes down to the fact that an ontology is a representation of
concepts that has been engineered for a purpose. What we see from the above is
that the same concepts can/must be differently engineered for different
purposes. (010)
-Ed (011)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800 (012)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ludger Jansen
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:09 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> Dear Ed & all
>
> may I enter the discussion with some naive questions?
>
> - Does this NAIClassification distinguish between individuals and classes?
> - Does it distinguish between relations like instanceOf, subclassOf and more
> sophisticated ones like locatedIn?
> - Does it distinguish between activities (Manufacturing) and agents
> (Manufactors)?
>
> I get the impression that not. But from the normative point of view I would
> argue that all questions SHOULD be answered in the affirmative.
>
> One example:
> BS>Bradley Shoebottom can be classed under Fredericton
>
> Not so, I would say: A city is an invidual; nothing can be classed under it.
> There is, however, a class of inhabitants of Fredericton; an individual person
> can be an instance of this class. Or BS is locatedIn Fredericton.
>
> Best
> Ludger
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ontology Summit 2013 discussion" <ontology-
> summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
>
> >I obviously don't understand what you are doing.
> >
> >> <Apple>, as an instance of schema.org/Corporation
> <hasNAICclassification>
> >> instance <334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing> which is an
> instance
> >> of class <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing>
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with modeling a classification of activities as an
> > instance of NAICClassification.
> > The strange thing is modeling SOME classifications as instances and OTHER
> > classifications, e.g., <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment
> > Manufacturing>, as subclasses.
> > Is not 33411... also ontologically an instance of NAICClassification. It
> > is a classification, is it not?
> > If I assign statistical values, such as "percent of GDP" to NAIC
> > Classifications, how do I assign a "percent of GDP" value to 33411?
> > With the proposed model, I can only assign "percent of GDP" values to leaf
> > classifications.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bradley Shoebottom
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:17 PM
> >> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >>
> >> Ed,
> >>
> >> I used the NAIC myself about 4 years ago to classify a particular segment
> >> of
> >> the NB economy.
> >>
> >> But from an ontological perspective, organizations should not show up as
> >> a
> >> child of a particular activities class, but rather have an association to
> >> the
> >> bottommost item (instance) listed for a particular tree. I can see how
> >> the
> >> NAIC was used as a simple drop down taxonomy.
> >>
> >> Organizations are organizations who do an activity that yes can be
> >> classified,
> >> but it is improper to put them under an activity philosophically. It
> >> would be
> >> like me saying:
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom can be classed under Fredericton (the city I live in)
> >> in a
> >> list of Canadian Cities organized by county, then Province then nation. I
> >> am
> >> not really a city, rather I am a Frederictonian which is semantically
> >> different.
> >> Frederictonian implies a person with residency.
> >>
> >> Using this excerpt from the NAIC.
> >>
> >> <Apple>, as an instance of schema.org/Corporation
> <hasNAICclassification>
> >> instance <334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing> which is an
> instance
> >> of class <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing>
> >>
> >> <Apple> also <hasNAICclassification> instance <334210> as a child of
> >> <33421
> >> Telephone Apparatus Manufacturin>g. Apple is not classed as the
> >> broader <3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing> because that
> >> would imply they make radios and TVs.
> >>
> >> 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
> >> 3341 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
> >> 334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
> >> 334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment
> >> Manufacturing
> >> 3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33421 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
> >> 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
> >> 33422 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
> >> Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
> >> Communications
> >> Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 33429 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >> 334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
> >>
> >> After working through this thought process, yes, I can simplify this to a
> >> simple
> >> rdf class structure with instances being companies instead of the
> >> activities,
> >> but my tool set still can't easily import the excel file and I either
> >> need a script
> >> or many enter 2000+ classes and arrange them. I just did a time estimate
> >> and
> >> it would take 20 seconds per entry or 12 hours in total.
> >>
> >> I can do this in my free time over the next 2-3 weeks.
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom
> >> Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
> >> Phone: (506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free: (800) 363-3358
> >> Skype: bradley.shoebottom
> >> Email: bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> www.innovatia.net
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:28 PM
> >> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >>
> >> Bradley Shoebottom wrote:
> >>
> >> > Translating the NAIC into rdf is a much bigger job than anticipated.
> >> >
> >> > IT requires that a script be written to distinguish between classes
> >> > and instances (instances are the bottom most number of a tree). I do
> >> > not have this skill.
> >>
> >> Hmm... This takes a particular view of the tree that is somewhat
> >> unexpected.
> >> According to the NAIC documentation, these are all Classes. The
> >> instances
> >> are organizations, practices, etc., that participate in those industrial
> >> activities.
> >> What am I missing?
> >>
> >> -Ed
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I initially thought I could easily pivot the table to create a tree
> >> > and then import, but I do not have those skills in excel.
> >> >
> >> > My tool does not easily allow the creation of classes from the
> >> > spreadsheet. I would be looking at a many day process to develop the
> >> > hierarchy and then populate it with instances.
> >> >
> >> > I am wondering if someone at Reassert is still around that helped
> >> > convert the US data gov info into RDF?
> >> >
> >> > The OmniClass Table 32 has a problem too because many of the Level 2
> >> > title use the same title as in other Level 1 categories. The OmniClass
> >> > code does changes. The definition remains the same. I So I could
> >> > create instances based on the code and when you query the label, you
> >> > would potentially get several and you would have to select the correct
> >> > parent category. Or, I create instances based on the title name and
> >> > include the several codes assigned to the same title with the single
> >> > definition. You would be able to find the proper code you want through
> >> > the options of the parent class. Once you let me know which you
> >> > prefer, it would be easy to implement as my idea would only have the
> >> > Level 1 titles be a class (about 10) and the remaining Level 2-4 to be
> >> > instances using SKOS broader/narrower to define level 2-4. I can
> >> > include
> >> synonyms (skos altLabel) and definitions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bradley Shoebottom
> >> > Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
> >> > Phone: (506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free: (800) 363-3358
> >> > Skype: bradley.shoebottom
> >> > Email: bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > www.innovatia.net
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >> > summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MacPherson,
> Deborah
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:04 AM
> >> > To: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Hi Paul
> >> >
> >> > A few years ago I dug into the NAICS codes and there is already a nice
> >> > overlap.
> >> >
> >> > The OmniClass Services table maps over to these codes, see
> >> > [http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/nbims-us-v2/pdf/NBIMS-
> >> > US2_c2.8.pdf]
> >> >
> >> > OmniClass and NAICS sit right next to each other (alphabetically!) on
> >> > the DoD Products and Services Report in the Business Enterprise
> >> > Architecture 8.1, see
> >> > [http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> >> > architecture/8.1/delta/term.htm] however please note 10 is current,
> >> > see
> >> > [http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> >> > architecture/10.0/classic/index.htm]
> >> >
> >> > The Department of Energy DOE Building Energy Performance (BEP)
> >> > Taxonomy also includes both OmniClass and NAICS, see
> >> >
> >>
> [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/pdfs/doe_building_e
> >> > nergy_performance_taxonomy.pdf]
> >> >
> >> > I'll look back at the Census spreadsheet and try to mash it up with
> >> > some other things, thanks for the link.
> >> >
> >> > Deborah
> >> >
> >> > DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> >> > Specifications and Research
> >> >
> >> > Cannon Design
> >> > 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> >> > Suite 500
> >> > Arlington, VA 22201
> >> >
> >> > Phone: 703.907.2353
> >> > Direct Dial: 2353
> >> >
> >> > dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Cannondesign.com
> >> > Skype debmacp
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >> > summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pope, Paul Albert
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:21 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Deborah, et al.,
> >> >
> >> > I offer the following (perhaps cursory) info, FYI/FWIW, concerning
> >> > your statement "...a part name or number ... that could be mapped to a
> >> > generic form for broader exchange purposes" and the general interest
> >> > in the "facilities domain."
> >> >
> >> > North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
> >> > http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
> >> > "It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy
> >> > Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada, and Mexico's Instituto Nacional
> >> > de Estadistica y Geografia, to allow for a high level of comparability
> >> > in business statistics among the North American countries."
> >> > I wish this taxonomy was available in OWL or other format; alas, it is
> >> > only(?) available as a spreadsheet:
> >> >
> >>
> http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/reference_files_tools/2012/2012_
> >> > NAICS_Structure.xls
> >> >
> >> > Concerning "Dining and Drinking Spaces", try entering the keyword
> >> > "dining"
> >> > into the search text box in the upper left for "2012 NAICS Search".
> >> > The last code in the list retrieved is "722511 Full-Service
> >> > Restaurants". Click on that link. Not responsible for hunger pangs
> >> > that might result ;-)
> >> >
> >> > B/R,
> >> > Paul Pope, Ph.D.
> >> > Los Alamos National Laboratory
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ontology-summit-
> >> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of MacPherson, Deborah
> >> > [dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:56 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > Somewhere in this discussion is a problem that is the essence of what
> >> > has been holding up progress in the facilities domain.
> >> >
> >> > There are ways to publish technical requirements or test for
> >> > conformance online for free, and pay (even substantially) to
> >> > participate in the working groups or have voting privileges. For
> >> > example
> >> OGC, W3C.
> >> >
> >> > I can even see being able to own a part name or number within a larger
> >> > communication machine that could be mapped to a generic form for
> >> > broader exchange purposes. For example "13-57 13 15 Dining and
> Drinking
> >> Spaces"
> >> > versus "The Sand Bar and Grille"
> >> >
> >> > Depending on the domain, or need for cross disciplinary discussion,
> >> > many on the IP-protected side have no interest in supporting, or will
> >> > even actively stops progress, on a common model. There is also the
> >> > problem of failed common models that do not work, will not
> accommodate
> >> > different object definitions - from software to software or industry
> >> > model to industry model - without loss of data or functionality.
> >> > Bentley systems has stepped forward in this white
> >> >
> paper<http://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/docs/bentley_institute/W
> >> > hite _paper_IFC.pdf> on the IFC model to say actually - the emperor
> >> > has no clothes on. See pages 6 and 7 "Round Tripping"
> >> >
> >> > For some reason I think ontologies might be a way these IP-With-Open
> >> > problems might be fixed but maybe I am wrong or wishing for too much.
> >> >
> >> > DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> >> > Specifications and Research
> >> >
> >> > Cannon Design
> >> > 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> >> > Suite 500
> >> > Arlington, VA 22201
> >> >
> >> > Phone: 703.907.2353
> >> > Direct Dial: 2353
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > m>
> >> > Cannondesign.com
> >> > Skype debmacp
> >> >
> >> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> >> > summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:25 PM
> >> > To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Peter R. Benson
> >> > <Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >> > Deborah, IP is a real issue. We designed the eOTD to try to resolve
> >> > some of these issues. In a dictionary the IP resides in the
> >> > representation but also in the identifiers or codes as these are always
> >> copyright.
> >> >
> >> > That is not entirely clear; see e.g. SOUTHCO, INC v. KANEBRIDGE
> >> > CORPORATION ( http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf
> ),
> >> > where part numbers were found to be not protected (but see also how
> >> > Alito takes care to distinguish Delta Dental )
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> > _______
> >> > 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/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > 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/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > 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/OntologySummit2013/
> >> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> > bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> > 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/OntologySummit2013/
> >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> 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/OntologySummit2013/
> >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> >> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> >> 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/OntologySummit2013/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> > 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/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (014)
|