- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:06:49 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <507EBB79.2060505@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi John,
thanks for this summary. This is very valuable for our next
discussions during the telco.
Cheers,
Philipp.
Am 17.10.12 11:18, schrieb John McCrae:
> Hi all,
>
> I have attempted to collect the main points of the discussion in the
> Wiki, could you look over the summary and add future points directly
> in the Wiki
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com
> <mailto:gvetere@it.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> Aldo,
> you are right, we cannot discuss philosophical matters here, but
> on the other hand I see basic questions that may have a deep
> impact on the technical soundness of the proposal. For instance,
> it looks like you see ontologies as 'constants from a vocabulary'
> while I think that vocabularies are made of lexical entries +
> senses, while ontologies are theories of what exists. I don't want
> to start a discussion on constructivism vs critical realism here,
> but for sure we have to choose one of the three options: 1)
> implement a vision like yours, 2) implement a vision like mine, 3)
> implement something that accommodates both.
>
> Philipp,
> if the final decision is to have signs referring to class names
> that's fine, but still I think that we need to explicit different
> possible formal semantics that people (e.g. resource developers
> and users) can attach to the relation in question, e.g. to support
> scenarios in which reasoning on the correspondence between
> ontological disjunctions and antonymy of senses is needed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome Trento
> Via Sciangai 53 Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy 38123 Povo in Trento, Italy
> +39 (0)6 59662137 <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137> +39 (0)461
> 312312 <tel:%2B39%20%280%29461%20312312>
>
> Mobile: +39 3357454658 <tel:%2B39%203357454658>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
> *Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>*
>
> 15/10/2012 18:58
>
>
> To
> public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Issues about the semantics of the ontology-lexicon interface
> [was: Re: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> my understanding is completely in line with what Aldo is saying
> here. The "OntologyEntity" should be seen as a plain constant that
> "represents" the intension in question.
>
> The nice thing is that one can manipulate this constant
> independent of its ontological commitment. This is in line with
> what Aldo is saying below. So punning is not only a syntactic
> trick, but a principled strategy to refer to the symbol that
> represents a certain ontological commitment.
>
> I attach a short document that I have just created. I am not sure
> this will introduce more confusion. I hope not. I will elaborate
> this in more detail later, but I wanted to provide this for the
> current thread of discussion as quickly as possible.
>
> I think it is in line with Aldo's position. Aldo?
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 15.10.12 18:28, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
> Thx Guido, this discussion is very useful (provided that we do not
> get into the infamous "sumo-threads" where each discussion used to
> get eventually to discussing the nature of matter and life :)).
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Guido Vetere <_gvetere@it.ibm.com_
> <mailto:gvetere@it.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> Aldo, Armando,
>
> A couple of things about what you said (on the rest, I generally
> agree).
>
> As for the name of the arrow (property?) linking senses and
> concepts, Aldo is right, maybe 'characterize' is not appropriate
> in this context (indeed, the notion comes from mathematics) and is
> not likely to be accepted by the community. But 'representedBy',
> if read from left to right (a sense is represented by a concept),
> could be even worse, since, in the mainstream of western
> semiotics, signs represent things and stand for them (aliquid pro
> aliquo), and not the other way around. Maybe we could adopt the
> classic (e.g. Odgen-Richard) 'refers to', even if the binding with
> the 'referential function' may be inappropriate. It looks like a
> trivial naming detail, but it may have an impact on the way people
> grasp the intended meaning of the model.
>
> The reason why I like "representedBy", despite its generic
> ambiguity, is that I see ontology entities firstly as constants
> from a vocabulary. As constants, they can perfectly "represent"
> senses. Indeed, this is quite inline even with formal ontology and
> logic (cf. Nicola Guarino's 2003 paper on conceptualizations).
> Of course, constants of a vocabulary get a *formal*
> meaning/interpretation that is based on model theory, but this is
> another story, which gives us room to claim that lexical entries
> can have a (formal) semantics with ontology entities.
> In other words, the way the ontology-lexicon interface works seems
> to be the following:
>
> - a lexical entry has some sense (either local or
> general/conventional), which we can call "lexical meaning"
> - a sense can get ("be represented by", or "be expressed by") a
> constant (ontology entity) in a formal vocabulary
> - that constant has a formal interpretation provided by logical
> and domain axioms: this is a "formal meaning"
>
> Unfortunately, logicians have substantially identified intension
> (which is the closest relative to lexical meaning) with the
> constants of a vocabulary. Therefore, the only original,
> operational, and useful semantic stuff that we have from logical
> models is extensional meaning. But we are not going to talk about
> that as well, right? ;). Since we are not doing that, ontology
> entities from OWL/RDF will be inevitably ambiguous, and depending
> on context, sometimes they can be considered as constants, and
> sometimes as meanings.
>
>
> This leads to the more basic question about the logic nature of
> this relation, i.e. of what kind of logical things fill the
> pattern: Lexical unit --meaning--> Sense --refers to-->
> Ontological concept. If we give this graph a DL interpretation, as
> I tried to do, nodes could be first order unary predicates and
> arrows (restricted) first order binary predicates. In this
> reading, instances of Sense (e.g. cat#1) would be related to
> instances of Concepts (e.g. my cat). Aldo suggests that this model
> would be in conflict with the intuition that cat#1 may in many
> cases refer to cats in general, i.e. the whole class of cats.
> However, 'class vs instance' ('intensional' vs 'extensional', if
> you whish) is part of the systematic polysemy for many senses, if
> not for senses in general. Dictionary developers might want to use
> the same sense of 'cat' both for 'the cat is on the mat' and 'the
> cat is a feline'. Now, it is true that an axiom of the form cat#1
> TYPE (Sense AND refersTo ONLY Cat) would not capture the
> intensional reading of the sense, but, conversely, setting 'refers
> to' to range on class names, as Aldo suggests, would not capture
> the extensional one.
>
> Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. When I read your "cat#1"
> I'm interpreting it as a sense of the word "cat", not as a
> particular cat.
> Now, if I interpret you right, cat#1 would be a Sense that is
> represented by some OntologyEntity.
> On the contrary, if you mean a particular cat, I'm not following
> you anymore: why a cat should be a Sense?
>
>
> In general, using class names as values for the property in
> question, e.g. by using OWL 2 punning, raises the question of
> providing the property with some extra formal semantics, since
> punning, as you know, is just a syntactic trick. As Aldo says,
> problems like this have been tackled by other specifications
> already, such as SKOS. However, we here face the problem of
> dealing with any legacy ontology, which rely on standard
> set-theoretic semantics, instead of 'ad hoc' conceptual
> frameworks. Thus, we should come up with a model that preserves
> both the intended formal meaning of standard ontologies and the
> complexity of linguistic signification, which is not an easy task,
> and cannot be pursued just by naming conventions.
>
> You're right in general, but I think that this is too much for
> this Community Group: after all, we do not want to solve the harsh
> problems of higher-order logics applied to natural language
> semantics.
> Anyway, punning is not much a trick (despite its name), but a
> regular logical way of interpreting constants in a theory by
> partitioning their interpretations. The fact that those
> interpretations do not interact as in a rocketing HOL is simply
> due to the limitations we accept for having a Web Ontology
> Language, which is in addition considered way too expressive …
>
>
> In my opinion, much depends on what 'Sense' represents in our
> basic pattern. I understand well, this concept is currently
> associated to either definitions in dictionaries or synsets in
> wordnets, thus being a mostly lexicographic notion. A different
> ontology could model Sense as a class of socially constructed
> abstractions evoked in linguistic acts, independent from
> dictionaries and wordnets. In the former case, Sense could be a
> leaf class, and what we link through arrows are instances. In
> latter case, I think that 'Sense' should rather be the root of a
> class hierarchy, and what we link to lexemes should be Sense's
> subclasses, whose instances, in turn, represent meanings in their
> textual occurrences. By the way, Senso Comune embraces an
> ontology like this. So a good question to start with would be:
> what do we mean when we say 'Sense'?
>
> My impression is that we cannot (and shouldn't in my opinion)
> attempt to solve that kind of issues; on the contrary, it's very
> useful to abstract out of them.
> A sense can be profitably (and yes, ambiguously) figured out as
> any conceptualization associated with a lexical entry, be it an
> entry, a definition/gloss, an ID, a paraphrase, a reference to
> some other disambiguating source, or even (please do not shoot me)
> formal meanings and cognitive objects studied by neurolinguistics.
> In the particular community of linked data and the semantic web,
> we can refrain from discussing too much what a sense is, and begin
> to see how interesting are the links emerging out of those
> apparently different creatures.
>
> Ciao
> Aldo
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome Trento
> Via Sciangai 53 Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy 38123 Povo in Trento, Italy
> +39 (0)6 59662137 <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137> +39 (0)461
> 312312 <tel:%2B39%20%280%29461%20312312>
>
> Mobile: +39 3357454658 <tel:%2B39%203357454658>
> _________________________________________________
>
> *Aldo Gangemi <**_aldo.gangemi@cnr.it_*
> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>*>*
>
> 13/10/2012 14:40
>
>
> To
> public-ontolex <_public-ontolex@w3.org_
> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>>
> cc
> Aldo Gangemi <_aldo.gangemi@cnr.it_
> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>>, John McCrae
> <_jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_
> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>, Armando Stellato
> <_stellato@info.uniroma2.it_ <mailto:stellato@info.uniroma2.it>>,
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT, Philipp Cimiano
> <_cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>
> Subject
> Issues about the semantics of the ontology-lexicon interface
> [was: Re: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all, I lagged behind in the last month, because of my recent
> installation in Paris. Yesterday I was traveling back from Galway
> (EKAW) and couldn't attend, apologies for that.
> I have followed the recent discussion, and that's my contribution.
> I have renamed the thread, because it is now spanning over
> different topics related to the semantics ig the O-L interface.
>
> ---Senses---
> Concerning Philipp's summary, firstly I agree with the decision
> (?not yet approved, it seems?) of creating the intermediate Sense
> class: it's obviously needed, either for making room for lexical
> senses (definitely to be distinguished from ontology entities), or
> to be able to talk about senses (reifications of the meaning
> function).
> Concerning the name, I vote for "sense", because sememes,
> acceptations, and others, are either very technical for the
> layman, or even wrong, as Philipp reminds us about the original
> notion of sememe. The only real alternative would be "meaning",
> but I'd rather keep that term for the top-level class of a meaning
> taxonomy, as I suggest in the following.
>
> In a previous mail, I proposed to consider also an additional
> solution, i.e. to create a taxonomy of meanings, which has
> ontology entities (as formal semantic objects) and lexical senses
> as special subclasses. The two solutions are compatible, and if we
> realize that a meaning taxonomy might be useful, it can be
> introduced anyway.
> Think of the sense-synset issue raised by Philipp: I agree that
> synsets are not lexical senses, if we assume that a lexical sense
> should be expressed by only one lexical unit (cardinality exactly
> 1), but still they are senses, and it's completely reasonable to
> put synsets (as well as many other creatures of lexical semantics,
> including sememes, acceptations, frames, semantic verb classes,
> etc.) in a meaning taxonomy.
>
> Concerning the property names, I'm ok with both LexicalEntry –
> meaning –> Sense, and with Sense – representedBy –> OntologyEntity.
> Maybe we could get rid of multiple related uses of the "mean"
> notion, which can be somehow disturbing: Meaning as a class,
> meaning as a property between lexical entries and senses, means as
> a property between lexical entries and ontology entities … it may
> look like we are playing with words … what about following the
> conventional naming patterns that employs the name of the property
> range? E.g. LexicalEntry – sense –> Sense ; LexicalEntry –
> meansOntologyEntity –> OntologyEntity. The advantage of using this
> apparently redundant naming is that at the instance level, the
> triple become very clear, e.g. Saxophone – sense –>
> wordsense-saxophone-1 ; Saxophone – hasOntologyEntity –>
> music:Saxophone.
> I also prefer "representedBy" to "characterizes", because the
> second is very generic and not attested in any related literature.
>
> ---Property chaining over senses---
> Secondly, I agree with the decision to add a property chain in the
> model, which helps resolving the indirection produced by the Sense
> class: this is a good practice (a logical design pattern), used in
> many contexts. I do not see room for John's criticism about it: it
> does not increase the cognitive complexity (on the contrary, it
> facilitates the use of the model for those reluctant to catch on
> the sense-ontology-entity distinction), and the added
> computational complexity only holds when a DL reasoner
> materializes the ABox.
> One mild problem here might be that we are making slightly
> different assumptions when we name "representedBy" the property
> between senses and ontology entities, but "means" the property
> between lexical entries and ontology entities. Since we do not
> have a rich axiomatization behind these names, we might be
> pragmatic and ignore the problem, however I deem important to
> justify it a little bit in the documentation. In practice, this
> approach seems to suggest that senses are actually "represented"
> by ontology entities, and this is clear and intuitive. It also
> suggests that lexical entries actually "mean" ontology entities,
> but this is far less clear and intuitive, since in no obvious way
> words mean stuff in ontologies … it's much better to say that
> words have conceptualizations that are represented in ontologies.
> Indeed this is the way we talk of lexical senses :). That's why my
> above suggestion was "hasOntologyEntity", which however I admit ti
> be too generic. In principle, the compositional name that best
> fits the property chain would be
> "hasSenseRepresentedByOntologyEntity", but it's way too long,
> specially for those willing to use that property as a shortcut.
> Other suggestions?
>
> ---GCIs on ontology hierarchies---
> Finally, a comment about Guido's observation that "cat#1
> INSTANCEOF (Sense AND characterizes ONLY Animal)" is the right
> formalization for an example of the representedBy object property
> values. If I understand well, here we have two important issues.
> The first one can be solved by using OWL2, the second poses a more
> difficult challenge.
> For the first issue, I think that Guido talks about OWL1, but
> anyway that axiom would give us a misinterpretation, because it
> would tell us that cat#1 is a sense that can only be represented
> by *individuals* from the class Animal, which is not what Guido
> wants I guess. This problem was described in detail by W3C SWBPD
> committee in 2004, and eventually some OWL1 solutions were
> recommended in the "Classes as values" design pattern. However, in
> OWL2 (lucky us) punning makes our lives easier, and a simple
> (partial!) solution is (in Manchester syntax) "cat#1 TYPES (Sense
> AND representedBy VALUE Animal)".
> For the second issue, Guido points out that there are cases in
> which we need to refer to generic subclasses of an ontology entity
> (if it's a class): this cannot be expressed in OWL at all, since
> we cannot use the OWL vocabulary in the position for the domain
> vocabulary, In other words, the following is a wrong axiom even in
> OWL2: "cat#1 TYPES (Sense AND representedBy (subClassOf VALUE
> Animal)".
> A viable design pattern is to create a property for meaning
> hierarchies, in the vein of skos:broader or wordnet:hypernym, so
> that we could declare e.g.: "cat#1 TYPES (Sense AND representedBy
> ([skos:broader] VALUE Animal)".
> However, a property like skos:broader typically applies to
> concepts, and senses would probably be compatible. Much less are
> ontology entities compatible, even though SKOS seems to suggest a
> loose correspondence between concepts and rdfs/owl classes. In
> particular, we should materialize ontology class hierarchies as
> skos:broader hierarchies in order to reason over these constructs.
> Another design pattern might resort to a specialized property,
> such as "broadlyRepresentedBy", e.g.: "cat#1 TYPES (Sense AND
> broadlyRepresentedBy VALUE Animal)". "broadlyRepresentedBy" can be
> a super property of representedBy. Of course, with this second
> pattern, we would lose the sophisticated DL reasoning that one can
> get with the first. Nonetheless, the second seems more practical
> and simple to apply for different levels of expertise.
>
> Ciao
> Aldo
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Aldo Gangemi
> Senior Researcher
> Semantic Technology Lab (STLab)
> Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology,
> National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
> Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
> Tel: +390644161535 <tel:%2B390644161535>
> Fax: +390644161513 <tel:%2B390644161513>_
> __aldo.gangemi@cnr.it_ <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>_
> __http://www.stlab.istc.cnr.it_ <http://www.stlab.istc.cnr.it/>_
> __http://www.istc.cnr.it/people/aldo-gangemi_
> skype aldogangemi
> okkam ID: _http://www.okkam.org/entity/ok200707031186131660596_
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 6:55 PM, John McCrae
> <_jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_
> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Armando Stellato
> <_stellato@info.uniroma2.it_ <mailto:stellato@info.uniroma2.it>>
> wrote:
> From what I got, and hope not to be wrong (it’s useful also for me
> to clarify as I missed a couple of calls on September),
> OntologyEntity is a generic rdf:Resource of one of the main
> entities in the main vocabularies (aka: OWL and SKOS, thus:
> property, class, individual, skos concept…).
> Another question to John from my side: from your email it seemed
> to be against stating the propertyChain axiom on (means,
> <meaning,representedBy>) implying that the direct Entry
> ---means--> OntologyEntityfrom "Lexical Entry -> meaning -> Sense
> -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity" but then the sentence: “Here
> the difference is 1 named elements vs. 3 named elements, but as
> stated above, at least half of users (data consumers) will have to
> understand all 4 names...” instilled some doubt in my interpretation…
>
> Are you voting against the larger structure as a whole (thus
> keeping only the Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity structure), or
> against the propertyChain axiom? I really got the second, though
> I’m not even sure how adding the p.chain axiom (or not doing it)
> would change anything for the user or consumer. I’m sure I’m
> missing something, so sorry in advance for my potential
> misinterpretation.
> Sorry it isn't clear: the long chain is TBMK agreed upon (Lexical
> Entry -> meaning -> Sense -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity)*...
> we are questioning whether we need the short chain (Entry
> ---means--> OntologyEntity) as well. I say it is not worth it.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> * or (Word -> sense -> Sememe/Acceptation -> characterizes ->
> rdf:Resource/skos:Concept/owl:Entity) or some combination of these
> terms.
>
> Have a nice we!
>
> Armando
>
>
> *From:* Guido Vetere [mailto:_gvetere@it.ibm.com_
> <mailto:gvetere@it.ibm.com>] *
> Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2012 6:08 PM*
> To:* public-ontolex*
> Subject:* Re: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object
>
> All,
>
> I apologize for missing the call today. Here just some short remark.
>
> "Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity" means that if you want to
> predicate on the meaning relationship (e.g. to associate some
> grammatical constraint) you have to resort on a meta predicates
> (e.g. OWL Annotations).
>
> "Lexical Entry -> meaning -> Sense -> representedBy ->
> OntologyEntity" sounds good, but instead of 'representedBy' I
> would say 'characterizes' or something alike, meaning that a
> linguistic sense gives a (cultural) shape to an entity. Moreover,
> it is not clear to me (maybe you discussed about that) whether
> OntologyEntity is a first order TOP concept (e.g. equivalent to
> OWL Thing). In this case, note that in order to tell that the
> instance of Sense 'cat#1' (i.e. the first sense of the lemma
> 'cat') represents an Animal, you have to write something like:
>
> cat#1 INSTANCEOF (Sense AND characterizes ONLY Animal).
>
> Is it correct?
>
> If there is something that I can do, please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome Trento
> Via Sciangai 53 Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy 38123 Povo in Trento, Italy_
> __+39 (0)6 59662137_ <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137>_+39 (0)461
> 312312_ <tel:%2B39%20%280%29461%20312312>
>
> Mobile: _+39 3357454658_ <tel:%2B39%203357454658>
> _________________________________________________
>
> *John McCrae <**_jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_*
> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>*>*
> Sent by: _johnmccrae@gmail.com_ <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>
>
> 12/10/2012 16:35
>
>
> To
> public-ontolex <_public-ontolex@w3.org_
> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Why not to shortcut the "sense" object
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed today in the telco there is a proposal to introduce a
> shortcut replacing "Entry ---sense--> Sense ---representedBy-->
> OntologyEntity" with "Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity", while
> this is theory sounds good, I contend that in practice it is not
> worth the effort. (This is based on practical experience with the
> /lemon/ model).
>
> * *It does not make the model easier to use*: It is clear that
> for data producers this proposal simplifies the matter (as
> less links and URIs are required), however for data
> consumers it complicates the models (as they need to
> understand both methods of linking and be able to infer
> equivalence between the two methods). Thus, if EaseOfUse =
> (% of Consumers) × EaseOfUse(Consumer) + (% of Producers) ×
> EaseOfUse(Producer), hence if we assume there will be
> approx. as many producers as consumer then we need only ask
> is it worth "is the extra effort for the producer less than
> that for the consumer", i.e., "would you rather implement a
> system that infers similarity across multiple
> representations, or use extra links and URIs"?
> * *It does not make the model easier to understand*: While, I
> understand that the sense object is nebulous and difficult
> per se to understand, I would still argue that the clearest
> measure of how easy to understand a model is, is the number
> of named elements it has (as many users may not need to
> deeply understand the meaning of a sense, but be happy to
> know that "translation", "antonymy" and "register" go
> there). Here the difference is 1 named elements vs. 3 named
> elements, but as stated above, at least half of users (data
> consumers) will have to understand all 4 names... if we
> assume out of the producers 70% do not need to represent
> senses (and thus any associated properties, "translation",
> "antonymy", "register") then the average number of links a
> user will need to understand is 4 × 0.5 + 3 × 0.5 × 0.3 + 1
> × 0.5 × 0.7 = 2.8... so it makes the model all of 7% easier
> to understand! Worse, this figure is overgenerous as: I
> expect there to more data consumers than producers and I
> expect at least 50% of users to require sense modelling.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di
> International Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated
> otherwise above)
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di
> International Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated
> otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> Semantic Computing Group
> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> University of Bielefeld
>
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
> Mail: _cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld[attachment "senses.pdf" deleted by Guido
> Vetere/Italy/IBM]
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di
> International Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated
> otherwise above)
>
>
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
University of Bielefeld
Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:07:24 UTC