W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

AW: AW: AW: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

From: Valentin Zacharias <Zacharias@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:23:24 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0373C42@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>, "SW-forum list" <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi !

please excuse the late answer. Thank you for your interesting comments (that
in some parts i've to read up on). Below I've only included the three points
where I still see substantial disagreement.

[Valentin]
>> Now I understood your reply as meaning that 
>> for you the OWL semantics are a
>> kind of minimalistic, basic semantics; 
>> that people are free to use other
>> kinds of assumptions and reasoning on top, kind of at 
>> their own risk.

[Pat]
> Well, say RDF for the minimal, basic, then yes.
> And the 'own risk' needs to be clarified. People
> are, and always will be, free to take information
> on the Web and use it in any way they please,
> drawing conclusions at their own risk. The issue
> comes when they publish those conclusions for
> others to use, and whether that 'risk' is then as
> it were transmitted to others without their
> knowing about it. That seems unreasonable. 

(Virtually?) all information published on the web is the result of some
reasoning process not accessible to whoever is using this information - just
consider the information processing involved before a (surely false)
statement like "china population_total 1321851888"[1] gets created. I don't
see why information created using Semantic Web data & information should be
held to higher standards. 

At the end of the day it comes down to trust - having a checkable proof that
shows how some information was derived from trusted sources is one way to
increase my trust in some statements - but its not the only one (I may have
blind trust in the information processing agent, may ask for second
opinions, may check for "plausibility", i.e. whether it conflicts with
anything I know ...) 

And even if some agent is able to provide a checkable proof showing how a
statement can be derived from trusted sources, I still need a bit of trust
in this agent; I still need to believe that it has not 'intentionally'
excluded other sources that state conflicting (inconsistent) information and
hence would have invalidated any conclusions (like the rumoured real life
behavior of some pharmaceutical companies to only selectively publish
reports from clinical trials that worked well).

[...]

[Pat]
>>>I think you are muddling the chaotic state of the
>>>Web with the idea that information on the Web
>>>must be somehow faulty or inconsistent, [...]

[Valentin]
>>It is indeed my conviction that information on the 
>>web will always be
>>faulty and inconsistent

[Pat] 
> It will be *globally* inconsistent, yes. So what?
> Nobody plans to download every Web ontology into
> one gigantic database. And the key issue for the
> global semantics is that it allow agents to
> reliably detect such inconsistencies, which is
> another argument for a classical model theory.

I chose the examples of Wikipedia and cyc (later in the email) intentionally
because they do not equal "every ontology on the web" ... but in the end
only time will tell how important inconsistency will become. However,
"faulty" is an entirely local property and to me an "assumption of
correctness" seems every bit as "dangerous" as that of unique names or a
closed world. 

(should we then assume that everything is false and give up? I think we need
to accept that everything is fraud with uncertainty, 'dangerous'. Then we
can see the 'dangers' of things like UNA and NAF in context and at the same
time start to search for formalisms & algorithms with uncertainty at their
core). 

> Nobody plans to download every Web ontology into
> one gigantic database.

Considering that Google already has a cached copy of the shallow web in one
giant file system - why not? Not reason with everything at the same time -
but have it indexed and at hand. I'ld expect that. Aren't Semantic Web
search engines like Swoogle already doing this when they crawl the SWeb?


[1]: http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/page/China


cu

valentin


-- 
email: zacharias@fzi.de
phone: +49-721-9654-806
fax  : +49-721-9654-807
http://www.vzach.de/blog

=======================================================================
FZI  Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, 76131 Deutschland, http://www.fzi.de
SdbR, Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> Gesendet: Montag, 6. August 2007 19:15
> An: Valentin Zacharias
> Cc: John F. Sowa; [ontolog-forum]; Ivan Herman; Juan Sequeda; SW-forum
> list
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
> Wichtigkeit: Hoch
> 
> >Hi !
> >
> >Thank you for your elaborate reply!
> >I'm afraid that the point I was trying to make is getting lost in the
> >discussion, so I do not answer to all your statements point by point
> but try
> >to rephrase the discussion.
> >
> >The starting point was whether the "proof" layer needs to be
> exclusively
> >based on unified (FO)logic - something I saw being implied by your
> objection
> >to the direct connection between the "Rule/RIF" and "Proof Layer"in
> the
> >layer stack - bypassing the unified logic.  Considering that I
> understand
> >the proof layer to contain *all* SWeb reasoning I feared that this
> also
> >meant that the proof layer must exclusively rely on OWL  deduction -
> >something that struck me as utterly unrealistic (and that's also where
> the
> >long list of "muddled, unrelated topics" came from - things beyond OWL
> >deduction I imagine happening in the proof layer).
> 
> We were clearly not understanding one another. By
> no means is OWL the last word in Web logics. The
> only plausible candidates for a 'unified Web
> logic' so far are some version of FOL, preferably
> with a very forgiving syntax, like Common Logic,
> or some extension of this which allows for a
> degree of reflexive self-description, such as IKL
> or (full) N3. But it is probably too early to
> standardize such an extension right now.
> 
> >Now I understood your reply as meaning that for you the OWL semantics
> are a
> >kind of minimalistic, basic semantics; that people are free to use
> other
> >kinds of assumptions and reasoning on top, kind of at their own risk.
> 
> Well, say RDF for the minimal, basic, then yes.
> And the 'own risk' needs to be clarified. People
> are, and always will be, free to take information
> on the Web and use it in any way they please,
> drawing conclusions at their own risk. The issue
> comes when they publish those conclusions for
> others to use, and whether that 'risk' is then as
> it were transmitted to others without their
> knowing about it. That seems unreasonable. The
> point of cleaving to monotonicity in the
> semantics of a global formalism for
> intercommunication is to ensure that what is
> meant by the publication of some content is
> exactly what it available to the reader of that
> content, and that this transmitted meaning is
> sanctioned by the network for use with other
> transmitted information. The semantics of this
> global transmission of content has to be
> monotonic because there is no way the publisher
> can forsee or control what other information will
> be added to the published content before it is
> used by a reader. So all assumptions on which the
> meaning depends should be made explicit in the
> publication itself. Which is just another way of
> saying that the semantics of the publication
> language are monotonic.
> 
> >   Also
> >that you imagine this to be mainly logical deduction
> 
> Yes, but for essentially pragmatic reasons.
> 
> >and that many of the
> >features under discussion to be used  there are just not good enough
> >understood to be standartized yet.
> 
> No. Some of them are quite well understood, but I
> don't think are relevant to the semantics of the
> intercommunication language (abduction,
> induction). Some of them are well understood and
> it is clear should be deliberately excluded from
> this language (nonmonotonic entailments). Others
> are not yet well enough understood. And still
> others are likely to be useful but do not, contra
> frequent claims, require going beyond FOL
> (contexts, time-stamping, modalities).
> 
> >Then, to come back to the starting point, we do not have a clear
> picture of
> >everything happening in the proof layer - and we could imagine things
> in the
> >proof layer not (exclusively) being based on OWL semantics. But then I
> don't
> >get your problem with the "rule-layer <-> proof-layer kink in the
> layer
> >cake. Yes - one unified logic has a certain beauty to it
> 
> Its not a question of beauty, but of an essential
> semantic simplicity. And this is subject to
> rigorous proof, cf. the
> 
> >- but there is no
> >problem with some SWeb agent taking some statements, using some
> ontology to
> >derive some more and then using some PROLOG rules and a query to get
> its
> >final result - or is there?
> 
> Well, I would not want to lay down rules about
> what agents can or cannot DO, and none of the
> SWeb specs do lay down any such rules (we were
> very careful on this point.) However, it would be
> a very dangerous process to use on an open
> network, since Prolog semantics is based on a
> closed world. The chances of getting incorrect
> results are very high, unless the agent somehow
> knows that it is dealing with a closed world
> situation. Now, how can it know that, in general?
> If there is some way to communicate this in the
> logical language, then yes, of course Prolog
> techniques should be used wherever they can be.
> But if the closed-world assumptions are made
> explicit, the overall logic is still monotonic.
> 
> >Yes, depending on the order in which i do this
> >and details of the formalisms the conclusions may not be correct FOL
> >inferences
> 
> Actually, in every case Ive seen, they are always
> first-order enthymemes. That is, they are valid
> first-order (or close to first-order: sometimes
> one needs a little recursion added) inferences
> from a slightly larger set of assumptions, in
> which for example the unique name assumption is
> made explicit, or the universal statement
> justifying NAF is made explicit. Making these
> assumptions explicit is exactly what we need a
> fully adequate logic.
> 
> >- but then, didn't we agree that lots of the things in the proof
> >layer won't be?  To me it seems that the moment you are insisting on
> the
> >proof layer to be based exclusively on the Unified Logic (equated with
> FOL
> >semantics) your minimalistic semantics that keeps all possiblities
> open,
> >suddenly excludes quite a lot (the LP community for one).
> 
> Not if it is all done right. But I agree we need
> an unusual logic to do this all in properly. It
> is interesting that a relatively small FOL
> extension, what amounts in effect to a zero-order
> comprehension principle, allows IKL to express a
> wide variety of what are traditionally thought of
> as 'nonmonotonic' inferences all in a strictly
> monotonic framework, see
> 
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/PatHayes_20061026/On
> tologyWorkshopSlides.html
> 
> slide 28
> 
> >and to answer one more point:
> >>I think you are muddling the chaotic state of the
> >>Web with the idea that information on the Web
> >>must be somehow faulty or inconsistent, [...]
> >>  Tim B-L has some interesting musings
> >>  on this topic, by the way.
> >
> >It is indeed my conviction that information on the web will always be
> faulty
> >and inconsistent
> 
> It will be *globally* inconsistent, yes. So what?
> Nobody plans to download every Web ontology into
> one gigantic database. And the key issue for the
> global semantics is that it allow agents to
> reliably detect such inconsistencies, which is
> another argument for a classical model theory.
> 
> >- I fail to see any argument to the contrary; even cyc
> >failed to build one consistent world-kb - and this is still a
> relatively
> >small kb, build under very controlled circumstances by very skilled
> people
> >with largely aligned goals and relatively similar cultural background
> and
> >education. Wikipedia is permanently faulty and inconsistent - as is
> the
> >Encyclopedia Britannica or every humans knowledge.  But I'll read up
> on Tim
> >B-Ls musings on the topic -  I ass
> 
> No, he has quite a lot of online technical
> bloggings which discuss this and other related
> issues. They are all on the W3C site somewhere.
> 
> Pat
> 
> >
> >cu
> >
> >
> >valentin
> >
> >--
> >email: zacharias@fzi.de
> >phone: +49-721-9654-806
> >fax  : +49-721-9654-807
> >http://www.vzach.de/blog
> >
> >======================================================================
> =
> >FZI  Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
> >Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, 76131 Deutschland, http://www.fzi.de
> >SdbR, Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> >Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi
> Studer
> >Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> >======================================================================
> =
> >
> >>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>  Von: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> >>  Gesendet: Freitag, 3. August 2007 18:00
> >>  An: Valentin Zacharias
> >>  Cc: Pat Hayes; John F. Sowa; [ontolog-forum]; Ivan Herman; Juan
> >>  Sequeda; SW-forum list
> >>  Betreff: Re: AW: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
> >>  Wichtigkeit: Hoch
> >>
> >>  >Hi!
> >>  >
> >>  >Pat Hayes said:
> >>  >[...]
> >>  >>I am slightly concerned that this peculiar kink in the layer
> >>  >>cake has been put there deliberately to make it possible to do an
> >>  >>end-run around a unifying logic. Which when one takes into
> account
> >>  >>the whole point of "Unifying", would IMO be a pity.
> >>  >[...]
> >>  >
> >>  >I can understand that people insist on Semantic Web languages to
> have
> >>  a
> >>  >formal, or even a model theoretic semantic.
> >>
> >>  "even" ?? But never mind, let us proceed.
> >>
> >>  >What I don't get is that you
> >>  >(and John F. Sowa in other emails) seem to insist that this must
> be
> >>  classic,
> >>  >FOL like, monotonic semantic and that all formalisms with
> different
> >>  >semantics (or kinds of reasonings) have no place in the Semantic
> Web.
> >>
> >>  You draw too rapid a conclusion. I don't think
> >>  that nonclassical logics have NO place on the
> >>  SWeb. But one has to draw a distinction between
> >>  'useful somewhere' and 'suitable as a basis for
> >>  global interoperability'. All of the Sweb
> >>  standards defined so far (RDF, OWL, SPARQL) are
> >>  intended for use at the 'top level' of the SWeb,
> >>  to be suitable for use for communication between
> >>  systems located anywhere on the Web, using data
> >>  which may come from many sources, be archived or
> >>  not, etc.. Under these assumptions one can make a
> >>  very good argument that the basic semantics of
> >>  such interoperation languages must be monotonic,
> >>  context-independent: because, in essence, the
> >>  context in which it was published is no longer
> >>  available at the point of use. See
> >>
> http://www.ihmc.us:16080/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.html#LogicForInt
> >>  and
> >>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/PatHayes_20061026/On
> >>  tologyWorkshopSlides.html
> >>  especially slides 4-6
> >>
> >>  >To me it seems obvious that these semantics cannot be the
> exclusive
> >>  basis
> >>  >for reasoning on a global,open knowledge based system
> >>
> >>  Not exclusive, but for the main basis, I think
> >>  one cannot really go much beyond classical
> >>  semantics, precisely because they are so weak.
> >>  All other semantics make some implicit assumption
> >>  which is not globally valid.
> >>
> >>  >, because:
> >>  >
> >>  >1) These semantics do not consider
> >>
> >>  True. But the fact that they do not consider
> >>  certain topics does not mean that those topics
> >>  are incompatible with them, or are ruled out of
> >>  consideration for ever. And one should not
> >>  usually seek to standardize topics which are
> >>  still the subject of active research discussion
> >>  and have no body of established practice to
> >>  appeal to.
> >>
> >>  >quantitative aspects (e.g. 5000 locations
> >>  >state that a(mike), only 2 state that b(mike)), don't allow for
> closed
> >>  world
> >>  >reasoning
> >>
> >>  They ALLOW for it, but do not mandate it during
> >>  global information exchange, for the very good
> >>  reason that the Web is not a closed world. CW
> >>  reasoning is simply invalid when applied to the
> >>  entire Web. The unique name assumption is false;
> >>  failure is not negation; etc..
> >>
> >>  >, do not consider trust, require very strict global
> consistency....
> >>
> >>  Again, they do not REQUIRE global consistency, or
> >>  indeed even local consistency. They simply, as
> >>  classical semantics always do, give up when faced
> >>  with inconsistency. They do not deal adequately
> >>  with it, true: there is as yet no globally
> >>  acceptable standard way to deal with it. One has
> >>  to deal with each case on its merits. The fact
> >>  that the standards do not deal with these issues
> >>  is not a message that they are irrelevant or
> >>  prohibited, only that they are still the subject
> >>  of research and to some extent emergent future
> >>  practice. We will have to wait and see what
> >>  happens, before trying to impose a standard here.
> >  >
> >>  >Because of this they cannot reflect the intuitions and
> expectations of
> >  > >humans about what should be concluded from a set of statements as
> >>  unordered
> >>  >and ungoverned as the web.
> >>
> >>  I think you are muddling the chaotic state of the
> >>  Web with the idea that information on the Web
> >>  must be somehow faulty or inconsistent, or that
> >>  people use (or perhaps should use) a different
> >>  kind of reasoning when faced with a large messy
> >>  dataset. I don't think this is a valid
> >>  conclusion. Tim B-L has some interesting musings
> >>  on this topic, by the way.
> >>
> >>  >  Hence actual applications will in any case use
> >>  >other notions of truth and entailment (or come to conclusions that
> are
> >>  not
> >>  >accepted by the users and probably not very useful).*
> >>
> >>  What makes you assume that contexts and
> >>  uncertainty reasoning are excluded by a classical
> >>  semantics?
> >>
> >>  >2) Should we really ever get reasoning semantic web agents, isn't
> it
> >>  >preposterous to assume that will rely exclusively on logical
> >>  deduction?
> >>
> >>  Perhaps not exclusively, but I think the main
> >>  basic inference mode will be deductive, yes. That
> >>  has certainly been the case so far in most
> >>  applications. Classical deduction can, with
> >>  current technology, be usefully applied to
> >>  datasets containing many millions of facts.
> >>
> >>  >- Why
> >>  >not induction, abduction, analog reasoning, data mining, nlp, ir,
> >>  simulation
> >>
> >>  You are muddling together a host of unrelated
> >>  topics here. Induction and abduction are not even
> >>  logical forms of entailment, and are both
> >>  consistent with a classical notion of truth.
> >>  Analogical (aka metaphorical) reasoning turns out
> >>  in most application I have seen to be a
> >>  pattern-matching process on structures which
> >>  themselves have a classical semantics (and in
> >>  many cases are expressions in FOL.) Data mining
> >>  is a separate topic which is not required to be
> >>  nonclassical (we have used datamining software
> >>  with OWL, for example). NLP systems often use
> >>  deductive reasoning. And so on. Yes, Im sure all
> >>  these and more will be used by SWeb technologies
> >>  of one kind or another. None of that however is a
> >>  good reason for basing the global notations of
> >>  information exchange on anything more elaborate
> >>  than simple model theory.
> >>
> >>  >... Doesn't this mean that in any case there will never be a
> complete
> >>  >mapping between the "proof" and the "logic" layer (as currently
> >>  envisioned)?
> >>  >I also don't see how any kind of inference can be done on web
> scale
> >>  without
> >>  >a large (essentially heuristic) information retrieval component
> trying
> >>  to
> >>  >get the relevant statements (considering what we know about the
> >>  complexity
> >>  >of inference algorithms) - again breaking the direct logic layer-
> proof
> >>  layer
> >>  >mapping.
> >>  >
> >>  >my opinion in short: we don't have any semantics that covers
> >>  everything that
> >>  >is needed (and I don't even see one at the horizon), hence we
> should
> >>  not
> >>  >stifle innovation by insisting on one thats clearly inadequate for
> the
> >>  task
> >>  >at hand.
> >>
> >>  I agree with your premis, but draw a totally
> >>  different conclusion. As we MUST have an
> >>  interoperability standard to even get the SWeb
> >>  off the ground, we should choose one that
> >>  restricts innovation as little as possible: the
> >>  most bland, vanilla, uncontroversial basis that
> >>  everyone can accept and build on. What semantic
> >>  framework would you suggest be adopted as the
> >>  basis for SWeb information exchange?
> >>
> >>  (BTW, I find your criticism kind of ironic, since
> >>  we have been the subject of torrents of criticism
> >>  for making the RDF and OWL-Full semantics too
> >>  'non-standard' by not basing it strictly on
> >>  textbook model theory.)
> >>
> >>  Pat
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >cu
> >>  >
> >>  >valentin
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >*: given the large amount of research into things like
> >>  circumscription,
> >>  >uncertainty reasoning, rdf/dl+contexts etc. I was under the
> impression
> >>  that
> >>  >this is a SW-community mainstream position.
> >>  >
> >>  >--
> >>  >email: zacharias@fzi.de
> >>  >phone: +49-721-9654-806
> >>  >fax  : +49-721-9654-807
> >>  >http://www.vzach.de/blog
> >>  >
> >>
> >======================================================================
> >  > =
> >>  >FZI  Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> (TH)
> >>  >Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, 76131 Deutschland, http://www.fzi.de
> >  > >SdbR, Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> >>  >Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi
> >>  Studer
> >>  >Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther
> Leßnerkraus
> >>
> >======================================================================
> >>  =
> >>  >
> >>  >>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>  >>  Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-
> >>  request@w3.org]
> >>  >>  Im Auftrag von Pat Hayes
> >>  >>  Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007 17:20
> >>  >>  An: John F. Sowa
> >>  >>  Cc: [ontolog-forum]; Ivan Herman; Juan Sequeda; SW-forum list;
> >>  >>  semantic_web@googlegroups.com
> >>  >>  Betreff: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
> >>  >>
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  >Pat,
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >I agree that the proof box is misplaced, but I think
> >>  >  > >that the major problem is that the logic box is not
> >>  >>  >correctly positioned.
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >>  http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.png
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >PH> Hmm, I wonder why the 'Proof' Tetris piece has
> >>  >>  >>  a connection to Rule without going through Unifying
> >>  >>  >>  Logic.  That seems like a very bad decision to me
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >Unifying Logic is the framework that includes the others
> >>  >>  >as subsets:  RDF, RDF-S, Rule RIF, OWL, and SPARQL.
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >Each of these subsets is tailored for a specific kind of
> >>  >>  >inference engine and/or a specific range of uses.  What
> >>  >>  >unifies them is the common model-theoretic semantics.
> >>  >>  >That semantics enables all of them to interoperate on
> >>  >>  >shared data and produce consistent results.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  Thats what I would expect, yes. And I know the overall picture.
> >>  What
> >>  >>  surprised me was the fact that there seems to be a special
> >>  >>  short-circuit allowing Rules to connect to Proof without taking
> the
> >>  >>  Logic into account. Which in turn suggests a special
> dispensation
> >>  for
> >>  >>  Rules to avoid having to have a common semantics with
> everything
> >>  >>  else. As I know there are, as the popular media says, Powerful
> >>  Forces
> >>  >>  in the Rules meta-community which would approve of short-
> circuiting
> >>  >>  conventional semantics altogether in favor of, say, some
> version of
> >>  >>  Prolog, I am slightly concerned that this peculiar kink in the
> >>  layer
> >>  >>  cake has been put there deliberately to make it possible to do
> an
> >>  >>  end-run around a unifying logic. Which when one takes into
> account
> >>  >>  the whole point of "Unifying", would IMO be a pity.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  Pat
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  >
> >>  >>  >My suggestion would be to draw the Unifying Logic box as
> >>  >>  >a large container that includes all the others inside:
> >>  >>  >RDF, RDF-S, Rule RIF, OWL, and SPARQL.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  The layer-cake display has become a kind of W3C icon now.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  --
> >>  >>  ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >>  --
> >>  >>  IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> >>  >>  40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> >>  >>  Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> >>  >>  FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
> >>  >>  phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>  >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>  IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> >>  40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> >>  Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> >>  FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
> >>  phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 08:47:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT