Hi Ed,
please move this discussion off the ontology-summit list and over to the
ontolog-forum list. (01)
thanks,
michael (02)
On 13-03-15 12:16 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> Ludger,
>
> I can't speak for Shoebottom's model, and I will leave that to him.
>
> 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".
>
> 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
>lo
> cations.
>
> NAICS is an excellent example of designing an ontology for a purpose.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|