- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:58:16 +0100
- To: C H <craighubleyca@yahoo.com>
- Cc: Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@gmail.com>, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <c09b00eb0904080258n1656ae2es2c6d71abaeaaf74a@mail.gmail.com>
Craig, I commented on a few point in relation to the structure, and I agree that the structure was a mere outline, and should be be improved. But it was just a stab, intended for discussions, I hope everybody's comments will be taken into account in future draft, and the initial structure evolve. Only after we agree on a structure we can proceed to develop respective paragraphs. P On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, C H <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I don't believe these issues can be dealt with as add-ons. At the least > the following needs to be added: > > >[The report should state] W3's intent to integrate with economic & > > >> logistical > > >> (and medical and socio-economic) systems we know the target group will > > >> use, to design gracefully-degrading communications between compliant > > >> systems and > > >> to define compliance in such a way that failed > >> > communications can easily be > > >> restored and facilitated by an authority taking translation > > >> responsibility. > > The "framing the report" sections indicate my criticisms of the current > structure proposed. The other issues could simply be appendices to the > report, but they have no context without the paragraph as stated above. > > The purpose of this report is to frame some long term goals for the W3 > project. > > Not to restate rationale or facts that any participant already well knows. > > I repeat, > > >> not enough attention has been paid to composability, views or > > >> sets of use cases that represent the views of particular professions > > >> responsible authorities, and to the levels of > >>> interoperability desired or specified. > > It's these issues that should be the major focus of any final report, not > an unnecessary sales pitch for open source software, outlining problems of > incompatible or proprietary communications systems, or restating all the > problems of cooperation between global, national and local ER agencies. No > value whatsoever is added to the discourse by repeating all these things. > > So "adding bullet points" to a generally unfocused off-point presentation > is not going to do any good. What's needed is an entirely new outline. Of > course anyone is welcome to use or post or wiki any of the material that I > provided, in this post or any previous. > > Craig > > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, paola.dimaio@gmail.com <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: paola.dimaio@gmail.com <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: composability/distinctions, substitution/degradation/views, > levels of integration/translation [was] Re: 2 types of NIEM models more > follow up to meeting discussion > > To: "C H" <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> > > Cc: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gbergcross@gmail.com>, "public-xg-eiif" < > public-xg-eiif@w3.org> > > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 5:55 AM > > Craig > > > > > > I meant to say 'its going to be a treatise' > > > > > > Since it woule be better to keep the final report short, > > and unless anyone > > has objections, why dont you summarise your suggested > > entries as bullet > > points, so that Chamindra can consider adding them to his > > initial outline as > > 'possible areas to discuss for future work, and maybe > > paste the whole > > exposition somewhere on the wiki where it can be referenced > > later > > > > cheers > > > > PDM > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM, C H > > <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Paola, Gary, > > >> > > >> As the final report is taking shape we need to > > shape it as less of report > > >> of what is and more of a report on what the most > > difficult problems are. > > >> > > >> I agree that not enough attention has been paid to > > composability, views or > > >> sets of use cases that represent the views of > > particular professions and > > >> responsible authorities, and to the levels of > > interoperability desired or > > >> specified. Here's some initial thoughts on > > this. Huge topics but working > > >> out how to approach them would be the primary > > mandate of ongoing W3 effort. > > >> > > >> The report should state W3's intent to > > integrate with economic & > > >> logistical > > >> (and medical and socio-economic) systems we know > > the target group will > > >> use, to design gracefully-degrading communications > > between compliant systems > > >> and > > >> to define compliance in such a way that failed > > communications can easily > > >> be > > >> restored and facilitated by an authority taking > > translation > > >> responsibility. > > >> > > >> These are all pretty important goals to achieve > > resilience in emergencies. > > >> > > >> The rest of what I have to say is detail, but if > > you agree, here are some > > >> of the elements that probably have to work their > > way into the report or an > > >> appendix. I don't want to proceed to add such > > stuff without a consensus, so > > >> some feedback on what follows would help cut it > > back to what's needed. > > >> > > >> === Framing the report: "What moves and why? > > And what stops it?" === > > >> > > >> There's probably too much framing on the > > current proposed draft outline. > > >> Very structural, institutional. I'd like to > > re-organize this framing to > > >> address Gary's issues more directly, and the > > psychology of each role/view. > > >> > > >> "The EM and Disaster Management > > ecosystem" is a very poor name (the word > > >> "ecosystem" needs to be reserved for > > actual living evolved ecosystems or > > >> else you are giving up on ever representing these > > properly at all), I'd > > >> rather see it called "Resilience actors, > > their capacities and priorities." > > >> > > >> The "stakeholders, systems, professional > > communities, industry" do need to > > >> be enumerated but this doesn't get us closer > > to operational understanding of > > >> what really moves resources, volunteers, or > > victims to help themselves. > > >> > > >> I don't think anyone needs a list of reasons > > why responders must > > >> cooperate. > > >> The "background to the creation of the EIIF > > XG" should be a list of > > >> reasons > > >> why they don't, and how to address those. The > > "royalty free policy" for > > >> instance is important precisely because it removes > > barriers to cooperation. > > >> > > >> === composability and cooperation with > > non-compliant systems === > > >> > > >> I don't know how one truly achieves what Gary > > calls > > >> > composability of the underlying conceptual > > models. > > >> > > >> However, it's a fair bet that > > "composability" implies mathematical/logical > > >> coherence. If you want two models to mesh with > > each other they had better > > >> make compatible ontological distinctions. In the > > ER field they'd better > > >> be > > >> very operational distinctions. That is, we > > require tests to determine > > >> what > > >> is excluded from each category (see > > "falsificationism" for why this tends > > >> to be more effective at making the definition than > > knowing what to try to > > >> include). We've been edging around it but > > eventually one has to commit to a > > >> particular set of such distinctions, and a > > particular list of exclusions and > > >> scope definition. > > >> > > >> So one thing lacking in the draft "final > > report" is a clear statement of > > >> which distinctions would be inherited from > > economic models or logistical or > > >> medical or social/economic development models. If > > we aren't relying on at > > >> least a few core abstractions shared with those, > > we lose "composability". > > >> > > >> ==== what's out of scope ? ==== > > >> > > >> And what would certainly *not* be in the scope > > tackled by the eventual W3 > > >> standard. Someone else can comment on medical or > > social data compatibility > > >> but clearly we have some well-defined needs to > > share some types of data at > > >> least with those who are contributing resources > > and demand accountability, > > >> and with those who are actually in the field and > > accepting "our" directions > > >> (that is, directions that the standard passes > > through to do certain things > > >> such as go to a certain place or gather certain > > data or help some person). > > >> > > >> ==== interoperability examples: capital assets > > & transport itineraries > > >> ==== > > >> > > >> The argument to include a capital asset model or a > > generic model of routes > > >> or paths taken or planned by a vehicle or shipment > > is that there will be > > >> away to integrate that with any spreadsheet or > > logistical planning system. > > >> No economic model fails to make capital asset > > type distinctions and there > > >> is no logistics or transport planning system that > > doesn't have some concept > > >> of route or path in spacetime. So I make a case > > to include both of these as > > >> it appears possible to create robust generic > > operational definitions any > > >> other model could adopt, or at least adapt to its > > own idiosyncratic model. > > >> > > >> Why am I so sure? Because these models can be > > made strictly operational - > > >> relying on non-controversial tests. It's not > > controversial that a bridge is > > >> infrastructural/manufactured and so is a truck. > > It's not controversial that > > >> a living human person is not the same type of > > thing as an instruction > > >> manual, even though in some cases you can > > substitute one for the other. > > >> It > > >> is not controversial that money is a different > > type of thing than socially > > >> maintained trust, though again you can sometimes > > substitute one for the > > >> other. Enabling and proposing substitutions is > > what makes us "resilient" > > >> as opposed to "fragile". So I can't > > see a way forward without such maps. > > >> > > >> Domain experts such as Doctors Without Borders > > logisticians would be the > > >> people I'd like to consult on this. They do > > this substitution every day. > > >> > > >> === combining use cases into views === > > >> > > >> Listing use cases is critical, but those use cases > > each come from a view > > >> or perspective on the information. An economic > > perspective for instance > > >> might > > >> be immediate (maximizing the lives saved for the > > resources now at hand. > > >> the usual historical perspective of people engaged > > in "emergency response") > > >> or > > >> incident-long (maximizing the lives saved > > including those saved via fixing > > >> infrastructure or building victim competence - fix > > roads, treat flooded > > >> wells or train people in First Aid). As the time > > scale lengthens you may > > >> expect to refocus on tasks that don't appear > > urgent but may save more lives > > >> than focusing on direct medical aid. > > Long-term-resilience priorities (fix > > >> the school, change the electrical power source, > > train people in > > >> sanitation) tend to be those that make it possible > > for people to get by > > >> where they are with what they have. > > >> > > >> Another thing lacking is an enumeration of some of > > these perspectives and > > >> how the various viewers of the same information > > could contribute to common > > >> data models. A few more complex use cases are > > need to illustrate how this > > >> works. Say doctors observing general patterns of > > medical cases discover a > > >> water contamination problem and can very quickly > > cause tests and treatments > > >> to occur. Or camp operators investigating > > reported thefts realize that a > > >> vast majority of the victims are from one specific > > ethnic group or village > > >> and provision is made to isolate them from those > > who are preying on them. > > >> > > >> ==== graceful degradation ==== > > >> > > >> >This is a necessary requirement for > > >> > us, but not sufficient. You don't see > > the details on > > >> > data that you would need for > > interoperability. > > >> > > >> Often the data definition is delegated to some > > more specific standard. As > > >> in our discussion of routes and paths, where time > > and spatial location can > > >> be specified according to existing ISO time and > > GIS standards, and what we > > >> are specifying is a sequence of these that > > represents a vehicle or > > >> person's > > >> trajectory/itinerary/route/path/plan. > > >> > > >> Even if a logistics system does not properly > > support a robust concept of a > > >> path through space and time, it will at least be > > able to query some other > > >> system with "where was this person intending > > or reporting they would be at > > >> 3PM Chinese time?" or "at 2:24AM where > > is the closest person with skill X?" > > >> > > >> One minimizes communication between the different > > systems by supporting > > >> the higher level concept of the > > itinerary/trajectory but if it isn't > > >> supported, > > >> it degrades gracefully to a higher overhead series > > of communications about > > >> the specific expected or reported locations. > > >> > > >> === levels of interoperability === > > >> > > >> > Which reminds me that we probably need to > > strengthen our > > >> > discussion of interoperability itself. > > >> > > >> That was needed long ago, I think. One could > > start by defining three > > >> levels of compliance: > > >> > > >> - a minimum level in which a high-overhead but > > still automatic integration > > >> of core logistical data is possible, and other > > elements at least have some > > >> names in common so that simple techniques like > > data merges tend to work - > > >> > > >> appropriate for municipal officials in developing > > countries to run on > > >> their own, and integrating easily with fax, voice > > or voice mail & paper > > >> records > > >> > > >> - a fully compliant level of integration in which > > the abstractions are all > > >> supported and true peer interactions are possible > > - preferably implemented > > >> as free software with open content documentation > > (hard to imagine any other > > >> model that would be acceptable) > > >> > > >> appropriate for national agencies and any > > developed nation or global NGO > > >> > > >> - a controlling, guiding or integrating level in > > which active translation > > >> and conversion of data is accomplished, linking > > legacy systems with those > > >> compliant systems that are engaging in the > > peer-to-peer interaction - has > > >> the potential for human intervention, real time > > correction, distribution of > > >> tasks potentially worldwide, and integrating fully > > with models of natural > > >> capital and ecological services, long term social > > and family impacts (for > > >> purposes of minimizing trauma and prioritizing > > preventative or re-uniting > > >> daughters with mothers or aunts to prevent rapes > > before other re-unitings). > > >> > > >> appropriate for the largest global NGOs, developed > > nations' coordinating > > >> and security agencies, UN HCR, World Bank and > > others with primary support > > >> responsibility > > >> > > >> > Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D. > > >> > gbergcross@gmail.com > > >> > > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross > > >> > SOCoP Executive Secretary > > >> > Principal, EM&I Semantic Technology > > >> > Potomac, MD > > >> > 301-762-5441 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM, > > >> > <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > Mandana and all > > >> > > > > >> > > here is the glossary for this work > > >> > > > > >> > > > > http://www.niem.gov/topicIndex.php?topic=file-glossary > > >> > > > > >> > > their jurisdiction seems US, > > >> > > it would be good to have a conceptual > > model > > >> > > > > >> > > is this a standard that we should > > reference? > > >> > > > > >> > > following up with Chamindra's > > assignment today, I > > >> > have entered a few > > >> > > additional thougths to the sectin > > >> > > 'standards' and a table that I > > have not yet > > >> > managed to paste into the wiki > > >> > > > > >> > > in summary > > >> > > we need to define what we consider a > > standard > > >> > > and list and analyse the standards that > > we refer to, > > >> > in order to identify > > >> > > gaps > > >> > > > > >> > > i dont know how to make a table in our > > wiki (maybe > > >> > will work something out > > >> > > later) > > >> > > > > >> > > feel free to amend/correct > > >> > > > > >> > > cheers > > >> > > PDM > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Gary > > Berg-Cross > > >> > <gbergcross@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Mandana et al, > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Here is a liitle bit more on NIEM > > 2.0. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> A good site to start is with there > > Documents and > > >> > Download page: > > >> > >> > > http://www.niem.gov/library.php#rcanchor > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >From there you might go to: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > http://www.niem.gov/niem-2/niem/index.html > > >> > >> > > >> > >> This has the schemas, which are hard > > to follow > > >> > without an XML tool...I > > >> > >> think the excel version however > > provides most of > > >> > what we need. They > > >> > >> have a tab for Emergcy Management. > > Here's an > > >> > example of what one sees > > >> > >> there. We were talking about contact > > info like > > >> > telephone numbers. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> There is an Alarm event that is a > > type of > > >> > Activity and has the following > > >> > >> info. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> extends nc:ActivityType A data type > > for an alarm > > >> > event. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> em:AlarmEventCategory <abstract > > element, no > > >> > type> A kind of alarm > > >> > >> event. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Substitutable Elements: > > >> > >> + em:AlarmEventCategoryCode > > >> > apco:AlarmEventCategoryCodeType A kind > > >> > >> of alarm event. > > >> > >> + em:AlarmEventCategoryText > > nc:TextType > > >> > A kind of alarm event. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> em:AlarmEventCallBackTelephoneNumber > > >> > nc:TelephoneNumberType A > > >> > >> telephone number of the alarm event > > requestor. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> It would take a few days perhaps to > > map this > > >> > spreadsheet of entities > > >> > >> to things we are taling about. They > > have lots, > > >> > for exampe on > > >> > >> Organizations, Resoureces and > > People. Below is > > >> > the section on > > >> > >> Organization. > > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D. > > >> > >> gbergcross@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > >> > > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross > > >> > >> SOCoP Executive Secretary > > >> > >> Principal, EM&I Semantic > > Technology > > >> > >> Potomac, MD > > >> > >> 301-762-5441 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Organization locxation Relation > > extends > > >> > nc:AssociationType A data > > >> > >> type > > >> > >> for an association between an > > organization and a > > >> > location. > > >> > >> nc:LocationReference > > nc:LocationType Details > > >> > about a physical location. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationReference > > >> > nc:OrganizationType A unit which > > >> > >> conducts > > >> > >> some sort of business or operations. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> A data type for a > > body of > > >> > people organized for a particular > > >> > >> purpose. > > >> > >> Click here for object properties > > >> > >> Click here for sub-types > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationAbbreviationText > > nc:TextType > > >> > An abbreviation, acronym, > > >> > >> or code for an organization name. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationActivityText > > nc:TextType > > >> > An activity that an > > >> > >> organization is known or thought to > > be involved > > >> > with. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationBranchName > > nc:TextType > > >> > A name of the chapter or > > >> > >> branch > > >> > >> by which an organization is known > > within a larger > > >> > group of > > >> > >> organizations. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationCategory <abstract > > element, no > > >> > type> A kind or > > >> > >> functional type of organization. > > >> > >> Substitutable Elements: > > >> > >> + nc:OrganizationCategoryText > > >> > nc:TextType A kind or > > >> > >> functional > > >> > >> type of organization. > > >> > >> + > > j:OrganizationCategoryNCICORIAgencyCode > > >> > fbi:ORIAgencyCodeType A > > >> > >> functional kind of an organization. > > >> > >> + > > j:OrganizationCategoryNCICTYPOCode > > >> > fbi:TYPOCodeType A > > >> > >> functional > > >> > >> kind of an organization. > > >> > >> + j:OrganizationCategoryNLETSCode > > >> > nlets:OrganizationCategoryCodeType > > >> > >> A > > >> > >> functional kind of an organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationDayContactInformation > > >> > nc:ContactInformationType A > > >> > >> means > > >> > >> of contacting an organization during > > daytime > > >> > hours. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationDescriptionText > > nc:TextType > > >> > A description of an > > >> > >> organization > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationDoingBusinessAsName > > >> > nc:TextType A name an > > >> > >> organization > > >> > >> uses for conducting business. > > >> > >> > > nc:OrganizationEmergencyContactInformation > > >> > nc:ContactInformationType > > >> > >> A > > >> > >> means of contacting an organization > > in the event > > >> > of an emergency. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationEstablishedDate > > nc:DateType > > >> > A date an organization was > > >> > >> started. > > >> > >> > > nc:OrganizationEveningContactInformation > > >> > nc:ContactInformationType > > >> > >> A > > >> > >> means of contacting an organization > > during evening > > >> > or early night > > >> > >> hours. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationIdentification > > >> > nc:IdentificationType An identification > > >> > >> that references an organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationIncorporatedIndicator > > >> > niem-xsd:boolean True if an > > >> > >> organization is incorporated; false > > otherwise. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationLocalIdentification > > >> > nc:IdentificationType An > > >> > >> identification assigned at a local > > level to an > > >> > organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationLocation > > nc:LocationType A location > > >> > of an organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationName nc:TextType > > A name > > >> > of an organization. > > >> > >> > > nc:OrganizationNightContactInformation > > >> > nc:ContactInformationType A > > >> > >> means of contacting an organization > > during > > >> > late-night hours. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationOtherIdentification > > >> > nc:IdentificationType An > > >> > >> identification assigned to an > > organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationParent <abstract > > element, no > > >> > type> An entity that > > >> > >> owns, > > >> > >> controls, or operates the > > organization. > > >> > >> Substitutable Elements: > > >> > >> + nc:OrganizationParentAffiliate > > >> > nc:OrganizationType An > > >> > >> organization that owns, controls, or > > operates the > > >> > organization. > > >> > >> + > > nc:OrganizationParentOrganization > > >> > nc:OrganizationType An > > >> > >> organization that owns, controls, or > > operates the > > >> > organization. > > >> > >> > > nc:OrganizationPrimaryContactInformation > > >> > nc:ContactInformationType > > >> > >> A > > >> > >> preferred means of contacting an > > organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationPrincipalOfficial > > >> > nc:PersonType A chief or high > > >> > >> ranking > > >> > >> executive of an organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationStatus > > nc:StatusType A status > > >> > of an organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationSubUnit > > nc:OrganizationType > > >> > A division of an > > >> > >> organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationSubUnitName > > nc:TextType > > >> > A name of a subdivision of > > >> > >> an > > >> > >> organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationTaxIdentification > > >> > nc:IdentificationType A tax > > >> > >> identification assigned to an > > organization. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationTerminationDate > > nc:DateType > > >> > A date an organization > > >> > >> went > > >> > >> out of business. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationUnitName nc:TextType > > A name > > >> > of a high-level division of > > >> > >> an organization. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> extends nc:AssociationType > > A > > >> > data type for an association > > >> > >> between an > > >> > >> organization and another > > organization or unit. > > >> > >> Click here for object properties > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationReference > > >> > nc:OrganizationType A unit which > > >> > >> conducts > > >> > >> some sort of business or operations. > > >> > >> nc:OrganizationUnitReference > > >> > nc:OrganizationType A unit of an > > >> > >> organization. > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Paola Di Maio, > > >> > > **************************************** > > >> > > Forthcoming > > >> > > IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence > > Track (deadline > > >> > extended) > > >> > > > > >> > > i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, > > Graz, Austria. > > >> > > www.i-semantics.tugraz.at > > >> > > > > >> > > SEMAPRO 2009, Malta > > >> > > > > http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html > > >> > > > > ************************************************** > > >> > > Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, > > Chiang Rai > > >> > Thailand > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Paola Di Maio, > > > **************************************** > > > Forthcoming > > > IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline > > extended) > > > > > > i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. > > > www.i-semantics.tugraz.at > > > > > > SEMAPRO 2009, Malta > > > http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html > > > ************************************************** > > > Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai > > Thailand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Paola Di Maio, > > **************************************** > > > > Looking for champions > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig&feature=related > > > > > > Vocamp Ibiza Vocamp.org > > 15-16 April > > > > Advances in semantic computing, > > Book Chapter Proposals Accepted > > http://www.tmrfindia.org/eseries/cfc-sc.html > > > > Taxonomy of fundamental Ontology > > http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=77614 > > > > > > IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline > > extended) > > > > i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. > > www.i-semantics.tugraz.at > > > > SEMAPRO 2009, Malta > > http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html > > ************************************************** > > Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand > > > > -- Paola Di Maio, **************************************** Looking for champions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig&feature=related Vocamp Ibiza Vocamp.org 15-16 April Advances in semantic computing, Book Chapter Proposals Accepted http://www.tmrfindia.org/eseries/cfc-sc.html IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended) i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at SEMAPRO 2009, Malta http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html ************************************************** Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 09:58:58 UTC