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

Re: PROV Last Call - RDF WG review request

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:54:14 +0200
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BE1B11CE-A697-472C-BD2B-44836C50BAD9@cyganiak.de>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
On 12 Oct 2012, at 17:12, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> I'm not sure whether they actually want the "name" to denote the graph.

I'm pretty sure they do.

AFAICT, PROV has a general philosophy that goes like, “if it changes, it's a new entity”, and I read their spec as saying that bundle names are really meant to be rigidly connected to a particular set of provenance descriptions.

Whether these provenance descriptions are expressed as triples or PROV-N assertions seems secondary and interchangeable.

This doesn't mean that the “static g-box” approach wouldn't have worked for them.

Best,
Richard


> 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 15:54:46 GMT

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