W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:12:33 +0200
Message-ID: <50783361.4030202@emse.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Le 12/10/2012 16:55, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:19, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> Using RDF datasets and TriG would work from a technical point
>>>> of view with a few comments about the assumed relationships
>>>> between the IRIs and graphs, but they don't attempt that at the
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> No, because this was pending in this WG. I believe that it would
>>> be o.k. for that group to add that extra semantic definition if
>>> they are so instructed by the RDF WG.
>>
>> I am not at all sure that this would work for them.
>
> Why not?
>
>> They have examples where they clearly want to presume that the
>> 'name' URI of a 'named' structure can be used, in other RDF, to
>> refer to that named structure.
>
> Yes, and since we don't make any presumptions about that
> relationship, they are free to use them that way.
>
>> We have explicilty rejected adopting any such semantics for RDF
>> datasets, and indeed intend to allow datasets in which the graph
>> 'names' refer to other things than the graphs, while still being
>> paired with the graphs in the dataset.
>
> Yes, we have rejected adopting *any* semantics.
>
>> So I believe that the only instruction we can give them is that
>> they are free to use datasets in any way they like, but that the
>> RDF specs provide no guidance at all as to how to use them,
>
> No. *RDF Semantics* will not provide any guidance at all. The other
> specs, in particular the Primer, will quite likely provide various
> forms of guidance on the use of RDF datasets.
>
>> and they must define, and rely on, their own specifications to
>> define their own appropriate RDF structures
>
> No. RDF Concepts defines the appropriate RDF structure — the RDF
> dataset.
>
>> and to say what they intend them to mean.
>
> Well, they should say what the relationship between IRI and graph in
> named graphs is in PROV-conforming datasets.
>
>> I feel that we should warn them not to presume that the 'names' of
>> 'named graphs' can be used to refer to the graphs.
>
> Why? That's a perfectly safe presumption in PROV-conforming data.
> They should explicitly state that this is what they presume, but I
> fail to see the problem here.


Agree with all the rest but, I'm not sure whether they actually want the 
"name" to denote the graph. They certainly want it to denote a "bundle", 
which indeed will /contain/ RDF triples, but may be distinct from an RDF 
graph (especially since "bundles" do not consist of triples in the 
abstract syntax). At least, it is the way I interpret it, and it is the 
way I would like it to be. It gives more flexibility as the graph IRI is 
not rigidly fixed to the exact set of triples providing in a particular 
RDF dataset. With this view, it is even less a problem that we do not 
tell them what the graph IRI denotes.


AZ.



>
> Best, Richard
>
>
>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny enough, PROV-O has some examples that use TriG syntax.
>>>> They don't say what the syntax is, and don't reference any spec
>>>> that defines the syntax -- they just provide the examples
>>>> without comment on the syntax.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That has already been raised as an issue on the LC documents (by
>>> me:-) and these will disappear in the CR version of the
>>> document.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Best, Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AZ.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Sandro
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AZ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Sandro
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -AZ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> from using named graphs and RDF datasets for
>>>>>>>>>>> their bundle. But it's quite the opposite: we
>>>>>>>>>>> have voted for the absence of constraints!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So they can use the RDF dataset data structure
>>>>>>>>>>> the way they want. They simply have to be warned
>>>>>>>>>>> that they should not assume any particular
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning for a dataset. Therefore, if they want to
>>>>>>>>>>> use this for bundles, they'll have to completely
>>>>>>>>>>> describe all the constraints they require when
>>>>>>>>>>> defining a provenance dataset. Whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> constraints they define will be consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>> the RDF specs, since our set of constraints
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding datasets is empty.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'd have no problem telling them to go ahead
>>>>>>>>>>> and use datasets, and be specific in what it
>>>>>>>>>>> means in the context of provenance data.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --AZ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 05/10/2012 05:40, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 3:24 PM, David Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Pat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 15:55, Pat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David, greetings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been waiting for the WG to make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision about datasets and named graphs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before getting back to the PROV group, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the most relevant to their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'bundle' feature. As far as I can see, our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent decision to gove no semantics to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> datasets means that we contribute nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this, and the PROV group are on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own to invent their own graph naming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construct and give it the semantics they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want, independently from the output of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you concur?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm. A bundle is "a named set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions, but it is also an entity so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that its provenance can be described." [1] A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPARQL dataset "represents a collection of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphs" and "comprises one graph, the default
>>>>>>>>>>>>> graph, which does not have a name, and zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more named graphs, where each named graph
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is identified by an IRI." [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is clearly overlap there, but I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the overlap is anywhere near complete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't appear that the WG is willing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equate a "named set of descriptions" with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "collection of graphs" nor to presuppose some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to then give the dataset a name via an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. And it seems to me that it is the second
>>>>>>>>>>>> part that really matters. In their original
>>>>>>>>>>>> request for comment they particularly mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> named graphs as a topic of interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>> connection with bundles, and I took them to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in the possibility that named graphs
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be used to construct bundles or
>>>>>>>>>>>> implement them in RDF in a natural way. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think, now, the only possible answer is, no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it appears to me that we have problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the PROV-DM document's definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bundle from at least two perspectives: We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have semantics for datasets, nor do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a syntax that we could equate to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think they were expecting to find a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ready-made bundle in RDF, but there is now
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in RDF which would even be of utility
>>>>>>>>>>>> or help in creating bundles, AFAIKS. They will
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to define their own extension to RDF and
>>>>>>>>>>>> give it a purpose-built semantics of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TriG (as currently conceptualized) could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a syntax for a bundle iff we decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt some way to name the package itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as some extant systems do, by assigning an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRI upon ingest). I think both of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather unlikely at this time, although I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think implementors will cease doing so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because it is useful).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I could be wrong since my reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-bundle-entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:33 PM, David Wood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Paul. We'll get back to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortly, hopefully prior to your 10 Oct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 14:52, Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We had specific questions about PROV-DM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and PROV-O that we are keen on getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the email to the RDF WG chains on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 24, 2012:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "We particularly wanted to call your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to the Bundle feature [5].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions we have are: - We are hopeful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the notion of Bundle should map to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the notion of graph you are defining.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you look into this? - In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular, with respect to Bundle do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see the construct Mention[6] as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with RDF now and going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward - PROV-DM is dependent on rdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types[7]. Do you envisage any further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in the rdf data types?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, any feedback on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-Ontology document is greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, in prov-constraints we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondered about Bundle and specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology of Document and Bundle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work with terms you will use in RDF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I have heard that the term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataset will be used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are keen on getting feedback as soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible so that are CR document is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-line with what is forthcoming in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RDF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The RDF WG has discussed your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions below and we have decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is rather difficult for us to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sure that we are responding in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way you wish. As you undoubtedly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, the provenance docs are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting rather large and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints doc does not stand alone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you able to formulate more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> targeted questions for us to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider? For example, are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned that a particular feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of PROV Constraints relies upon RDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics, or a particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any more detailed guidance would help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our reviewers greatly. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave -- David Wood, Ph.D. 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Round Stones http://3roundstones.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cell: +1 540 538 9137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:29, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. We acknowledge your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request and have it on our agenda
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] for Wednesday. We will advise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our reviewers to send comments to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your comments list [2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.19#Provenance_Constraints_Review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[2] mailto:public-prov-comments@w3.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:07, Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Guus, David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you've seen, we just published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last call of Constraints of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV Data Model [1]. We are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in the RDF WG feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this document.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions we have are: - Does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology, Bundle and Document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work with the terminology in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RDF WG? - With respect to Bundle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Document do the defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints work with what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially being specified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RDF?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are looking forward to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback on this document and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also the other last call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time, Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor - Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Representation&  Reasoning Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Department of Computer Science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The Network Institute VU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor - Knowledge Representation&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoning Group | Artificial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intelligence Section | Department of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer Science - The Network
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Institute VU University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut
>>>>>>>>>>> Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines
>>>>>>>>>>> de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023
>>>>>>>>>>> Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66
>>>>>>>>>>> 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
>>>>>>>>>>> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
>>>>> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158
>>>>> cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4
>>>>> 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
>>>>> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home:
>>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF:
>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 15:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT