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 18:42:08 +0200
Message-ID: <50784860.40803@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Ok, let us just assume that PROV statements are like RDF statements and 
avoid this distinction. In this case, I would still disagree that the 
graph IRI would denote the set of statements, for various reasons, 
including what is written in PROV-CONSTRAINTS (later abbreviated as PROV-C).
In PROV-C, it is said:

  "When processing provenance, an application may apply the inferences 
and definitions in section 4. Definitions and Inferences."

What "apply" means is not formally defined, but from the informational 
section 2, I understand that "applying" an inference means adding the 
inferred statements to the instance:

  "we can often /apply/ the formula to the instance to produce another 
instance that does satisfy the formula"

  "The process of applying definitions, inferences, and constraints to a 
PROV instance until all of them are satisfied is similar to what is 
sometimes called /chasing/ [DBCONSTRAINTS] or /saturation/ [CHR]."

PROV-C also says that inferences are done on a per-bundle basis. So, I 
understand the PROV-C spec to be saying that a bundle is equivalent to a 
bundle that contain inferred statements. This seems to clash with the 
idea that the graph IRI denote the actual set inside the written bundle 
and nothing else.

Any implementation that would materialise the inferred PROV statements 
according to the PROV-CONSTRAINTS rules would be doing something 
incorrect if the graph IRI denoted the actual set of statements.

Yet, I understand that, provenance-whise, one would like to distinguish 
a raw provenance and a provenance-with-materialised-inferences. In which 
case, there is something more needed.


AZ.


Le 12/10/2012 17:54, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> 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/
>>
>
>
>

-- 
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 16:42:34 GMT

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