Hi Chris, (01)
I don't really subscribe to this idea of direct and indirect properties,
and I am watching and learning from that aspect of the conversation as
I'm sure there's a lot I can learn from. (02)
In my simple view of the world, there are things and there are facts
about those things. I'm sure it will be helpful to group those facts
that are relationships (object properties) into common supertypes, and I
hope to learn some ideas about that from this discussion on direct and
indirect properties, though I suspect that several different
distinctions are being meant here. For instance it could be useful to
make a distinction for those facts that are measurable about a thing.
However I don't have any strong pre-existing views on how to do this or
when you would need to. (03)
For legal terms, our financial industry semantic model has a concept of
a class of thing called "Contractual Terms Set" (specialised for example
as "Bond Coupon Terms Set"). If I were to model such things as "Maximum
ship length allowed on berth" and "Minimum dwell time" then I would
model them as contractual terms if these are set in a contract between
the ship owner and the service provider. Alternatively if they were set
in statute I would model them as part of some "Restriction" or "Law"
class of Thing. In either case, the question of direct versus indirect
properties would not arise, but if someone had a view on that, they
could work it out from inspection of the ontology, just as they could
from inspection of the ship, the notices on the quayside, the papers in
the harbourmaster's office and so on. If one is a good enough
representation of the other, anyone who was interested in these
distinctions could do that. (04)
In short, I see this sort of thing as pretty much a philosophy free
zone. The questions I ask are what are the facts and how does this
business see those facts? (the latter being how I would try to determine
the relevant ontological commitments). But I stand ready to learn some
useful distinctions of high level kinds of object property that are
universally helpful in meaningfully defining reality. (05)
Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. (06)
Mike (07)
Chris Partridge wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Agree and understand the general comment, but have a problem with the
> details.
>
> Am a little confused by the comment "These are all legal terms rather than
> physical facts about the thing."
>
> If the point is that you consider all so-called indirect properties as
> legal, then not sure one of the indirect items raised earlier fits - i.e.
> the boiling point of water.
>
> There is also quite a lot of legal paraphernalia around direct properties.
> For examples the weights and measures legislation has things to say about
> 1kg of apples when it is sold.
>
> So not sure legal makes the distinction you want here.
> However, the legal stuff you refer to are good examples of the ceteris
> paribus type baggage one needs to erect around dispositions.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
> Chief Ontologist
>
> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
> Phone: +44 20 81331891
> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BORO Centre Limited
> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
> Registered in England No: 04418581
> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
>
> This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be
> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named recipient
> of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor
> disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO Centre
> Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no cost to
> yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using Anti
> Virus software.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>> Sent: 05 October 2009 18:49
>> To: uom-ontology-std; Mike Bennett
>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> These are all legal terms rather than physical facts about the thing.
>>> This is interesting because it means that legal terms (and
>>> restrictions
>>> including contractual restrictions, limitations to warranties and so
>>> on)
>>> have facts about them which are demoninated in most of the same
>>> units as
>>> actual physical measurements are. The same would apply to that
>>> "Maximum
>>> operating temperature" example - the thing might or might not blow up,
>>> but the material fact of the matter is that if it breaks, the
>>> manufacturer won't replace it for you under warranty (assuming they
>>> find
>>> out, that is). That's a consideration about units that's quite a long
>>> way from considerations about measuring things.
>>>
>>> This is another good reason not to lock the ontology of units of
>>> measure
>>> into the ontology of things that are measured or an ontology of ways
>>> that things may be measured.
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Matthew West wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Chris and Ingvar,
>>>>
>>>> I've been away and missed this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The direct/indirect distinction was raised by Matthew and can be
>>>>> found in
>>>>> ISO 15926. Matthew or David can give you the latest links if you
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> google it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is part of an ongoing discussion elsewhere on the list ... e.g.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew W: "Could you give me a unit (or two) that you think only
>>>>> applies to
>>>>> one kind-of-quantity, and I'll see if I can identify another?
>>>>>
>>>>> IJ-answer: m (length), kg (mass), and t (duration).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> MW: So some other quantity kinds that use these units would be:
>>>> Maximum ship length allowed on berth
>>>> Maximum allowed loaded weight
>>>> Minimum Dwell Time (but you did not actually give a unit for this)
>>>>
>>>> Any other takers?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>>>
>>>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>>>> England and Wales No. 6632177.
>>>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
>>>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is, as you have indicated, one about the scope of the UoM
>>>>> ontology.
>>>>> This question of 'indirect' units was being discussed and I
>>>>> (assuming that
>>>>> this meant it was an 'allowed' topic) commented on it. Was I
>>>>> mistaken? So, I
>>>>> made no judgment about whether it is in our scope (your question
>>>>> seems to
>>>>> imply I did) - I'll let you guys argue about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if I was asked to make such a judgement I would say that
>>>>> it is a
>>>>> difficult call. With the direct units it is reasonably easy to say
>>>>> how these
>>>>> should be used. For indirect properties it is more difficult, but
>>>>> much more
>>>>> useful. The engineers I have worked with would like to find some
>>>>> kind of
>>>>> answer other than rule of thumb. A substantial proportion of the
>>>>> quantities
>>>>> measures in their datasheets are 'indirect'. So, for them, the
>>>>> distinction
>>>>> is important.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one does include them in, one of the problems is the sheer
>>>>> number of
>>>>> indirect relationships and the lack of organisation. I think there
>>>>> is some
>>>>> work to be done on explaining / understanding / unbundling the
>>>>> indirect
>>>>> relationship if one wishes to get a reasonably general set of
>>>>> rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, indeed. But surely this notion of proper operation is not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> part
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of an ontology of units and quantities, even if that is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> understood to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> cover issues of how quantities are measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, if one would like some general classification of indirect
>>>>> units, my
>>>>> guess is that it will be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Chris Partridge
>>>>> Chief Ontologist
>>>>>
>>>>> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
>>>>> Phone: +44 20 81331891
>>>>> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
>>>>> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> BORO Centre Limited
>>>>> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
>>>>> Registered in England No: 04418581
>>>>> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on
>>>>> Thames,
>>>>> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
>>>>>
>>>>> This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It
>>>>> may be
>>>>> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named
>>>>> recipient
>>>>> of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any
>>>>> purpose, nor
>>>>> disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO
>>>>> Centre
>>>>> Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no
>>>>> cost to
>>>>> yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked
>>>>> using Anti
>>>>> Virus software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2009 23:50
>>>>>> To: uom-ontology-std; Chris Partridge
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris, before proceeding, could you please tell us what you mean
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> by a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'direct' property, and why you feel that this direct/indirect
>>>>>> distinction is relevant to our main goal here of formalizing an
>>>>>> ontology of quantities and units.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat Hayes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gunther,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your examples seem to agree with my point that indirect
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> properties are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> different from direct ones.
>>>>>>> And I see you cash out the indirect property as a state (the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> option
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noted
>>>>>>> in my original email).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In your example, as far as I can ascertain, you describe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> observing a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>> temperature, but you stipulate an indirect temperature - e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maximum
>>>>>>> operating temperature of Machine X" rather than observing or
>>>>>>> measuring it.
>>>>>>> My guess is that there is more than mere stipulation involved
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of things your example does not capture is what operating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> properly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> entails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, indeed. But surely this notion of proper operation is not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> part
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of an ontology of units and quantities, even if that is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> understood to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> cover issues of how quantities are measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can play this game of 'you havn't captured X' for ever.
>>>>>> Eventually, it will always become circular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typically there are quite a few ceteris paribus conditions,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> which
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> are not mentioned here (or are implied by the use of the phrase
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "act
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> operating properly").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll leave it to the engineers to provide examples of scale
>>>>>>> properties of
>>>>>>> temperature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Chris Partridge
>>>>>>> Chief Ontologist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
>>>>>>> Phone: +44 20 81331891
>>>>>>> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
>>>>>>> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BORO Centre Limited
>>>>>>> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
>>>>>>> Registered in England No: 04418581
>>>>>>> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Thames,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> It
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> named
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> recipient
>>>>>>> of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> purpose,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>> disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> BORO
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Centre
>>>>>>> Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> at no
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> cost to
>>>>>>> yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> using
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anti
>>>>>>> Virus software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gunther Schadow
>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2009 22:54
>>>>>>>> To: uom-ontology-std
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris Partridge wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They seem to be like Cambridge properties, in as much as it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> is not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mere examination of the object will reveal (the value of) the
>>>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> some kind of explanation of the relation is needed to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the practical engineering level, the normal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> interpretations of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> scale
>>>>>>>>> operations such as addition (e.g. in the case of mass,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> putting both
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the mass on the same scale) and so on do not seem to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> work in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This only works for extensive properties. It fails with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> temperature
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> already. So that aspect does not seem to make a difference
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> between
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> maximum allowable temperature and actual temperature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me "maximum allowable temperature" is the upper bound of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "operating temperature" interval, which in turn is a criterion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> over
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the actual temperature property. The way we handle such things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HL7 is like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Maximum temperature = 40 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Observation (criterion)
>>>>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>>>>> at time /any time/
>>>>>>>> has value [15;40] degree Celsius
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Actual temperature 25 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Observation (actual)
>>>>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>>>>> at time 2009-09-30T15:05
>>>>>>>> has value [24.5;25.5] degree Celsius
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Actual temperature 43 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Observation (actual)
>>>>>>>> of quantity /core temperatue/
>>>>>>>> at time 2009-09-30T15:15
>>>>>>>> has value [42.5;43.5] degree Celsius
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comparison between a criterion and an actual quantity is done
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> by
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> comparing whether the actual quantity is included in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That way one can also define other criteria, such as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alarm temperature at > 35 degree Celsius"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Observation (criterion)
>>>>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>>>>> at time /any time/
>>>>>>>> has value [35;-) degree Celsius
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difference between the 2 criteria is how they are related
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> other information. For example, operating temperature would be
>>>>>>>> related to the operation act that the machine performs whereas
>>>>>>>> alarm temperature would be related to the alarm action:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Act "to operate properly"
>>>>>>>> isPerformedBy Machine
>>>>>>>> hasThroughCondition Observation (criterion) for "operating
>>>>>>>> temperature
>>>>>>>> range"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Act "to raise alarm"
>>>>>>>> isPerformedBy TemperatureMonitor
>>>>>>>> hasSubject Machine
>>>>>>>> hasTriggerCondition Observation (criterion) for "alarm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> temperature"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so a lot of these notions of "indirect properties" is in my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> view
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> best modeled by additional structures. But nevertheless one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> always define a property as a primitive to stand for such a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> complex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> model. E.g.,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Maximum operating temperature of Machine X" :=
>>>>>>>> the high boundary of
>>>>>>>> the range value of
>>>>>>>> the Observation (criterion)
>>>>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>>>>> which is the throughCondition of
>>>>>>>> the act of operating properly
>>>>>>>> performed by
>>>>>>>> the Machine X.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we avoid such "indirect properties" with such models, there
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then fewer true "direct properties" left, such as /core
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> temperature/.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, you still have multiple temperatures, such as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - core temperature
>>>>>>>> - surface temperature
>>>>>>>> - measured by holding a thermometer close to the shell
>>>>>>>> - measured by an attached thermometer (using heat transfer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> creme)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and lo and behold, we can't really compare the core
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> temperature and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the surface temperature to find out if the machine is still
>>>>>>>> operating.
>>>>>>>> But we can compare the surface temperatures with core
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> temperatures
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to find out that the surface temperatures are always closer to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ambient temperature than the core temperature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> -Gunther
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor Indiana University School of
>>>>>>>> Informatics
>>>>>>>> Regenstrief Institute, Inc. Indiana University School of
>>>>>>>> Medicine
>>>>>>>> tel:1(317)423-5521 http://
>>>>>>>> aurora.regenstrief.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> std/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Config/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>>>>>>>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> std/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Config/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> std/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>>>>>>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> (650)494 3973
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>>>>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>>>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>>>>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>>>>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-
>>>>> ontology-std/
>>>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>>>>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>>>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Config/Unsubscribe:
>>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-
>
>> std/
>>
>>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>>>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Config/Unsubscribe:
>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-
>
>> std/
>>
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Config/Unsubscribe:
>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
>
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>
>
>
> (08)
--
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 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (010)
|