- From: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:19:28 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF26A719B9.F39B40DB-ONC1257A9F.002842DC-C1257AA0.0038BA0B@it.ibm.com>
Philipp,
sorry for being late and maybe too short on this.
Let's consider this use case:
A user has a lexical resource L that she wants to link with a pre-existing
ontology O. The lexical resource L doesn't specify meronymy, while the
ontology O has contains the role 'part'. According to the model (the one
we outlined so far), the user introduces an instance of Sense for each
definition in L, then for each sense in L she finds one or more
corresponding concept in O, and put them into a relationship (let's call
it 'referTo' and let's keep it logically opaque for now) with the sense.
The user wants to retrieve all the senses s in L related to the parts of a
given class c in O, e.g. all the nouns corresponding to parts of
'aircraft' ('fuselage','wings', etc). In other words, the user wants to
exploit the information encoded in the ontology to infer a 'semantic
field' relative to a lexicon.
Let's specify two different models:
M1) Senses are instances of the class Semse, and 'referTo' is an object
property that has domain in Sense and ranges on URIs corresponding to
class names in O.
With such a model, the use case this could be done in two separate steps:
1) retrieve all the classes whose instances may fill the the relationship
'part_of' with domain restricted to 'aircraft', then 2) use the list of
retrieved classes to build a union of conjunctive queries over senses in
L. Note that 1) would be a second order query; specifically, is a query
over properties and their restrictions, which would require an approach
like those described in: De Giacomo, Lenzerini, Rosati: On Higher-Order
Description Logics.
M2) Senses are subclasses of Sense, and 'referTo' is a standard first
order property. Sense-ontology mapping is encoded in structures like:
Sense_class ISA Sense AND refersTo ONLY [OntologyClass].
Now suppose that the ontology contains:
Fuselage ISA part_of only Aircraft; Wing ISA part_of only
Aircraft;
And suppose you map your senses like this:
Fuselage_sense_1 ISA Sense AND referTo ONLY Fuselage; Wing_sense_1
ISA Sense AND referTo ONLY Wing;
You can now define a class
Aircraft_sense ISA Sense AND referTo ONLY part_of Aircraft
Observe that Fuselage_sense_1 and Wing_sense_1 could be automatically
classified as Aircraft_sense by any standard DL reasoner.
Hope that this is correct (sorry for not checking before) and helps this
discussion.
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 +39 (0)461 312312
Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________
Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
19/10/2012 17:09
To
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]
Guido, all,
I am not saying it is a final decision, but my proposal is indeed to
refer to classes and other ontological entities as signs.
As you say, this prevents joint reasoning over lexicon and ontology.
It would help if you would give concrete examples where this would be
needed.
Best regards,
Philipp.
Am 17.10.12 10:33, schrieb Guido Vetere:
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 +39 (0)461 312312
Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________
Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
15/10/2012 18:58
To
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> 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 +39 (0)461 312312
Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________
Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
13/10/2012 14:40
To
public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
cc
Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, John McCrae <
jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, Armando Stellato <
stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT, Philipp Cimiano
<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
Fax: +390644161513
aldo.gangemi@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>
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Armando Stellato <
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-->
OntologyEntity from "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]
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 +39 (0)461 312312
Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________
John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Sent by: johnmccrae@gmail.com
12/10/2012 16:35
To
public-ontolex <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
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all?attivitą 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
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all?attivitą 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[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
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all?attivitą 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
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
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all?attivitą di direzione e coordinamento di
International Business Machines Corporation
(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise
above)
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:20:16 UTC