- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:27:30 +0100
- To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Gilles Sérasset <Gilles.Serasset@imag.fr>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53067342.9030900@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
John, I know that "directly ontologically related either through subsumption or via a shared superconcept" is sort of meaningless, but normal people that do not understand OWL understand; in some sense this refers to an explicitly materialized concept hierarchy and directly means then: direct super or superconcept. In any case, I am fine with changing the definitions, that's what we should discuss in our telco tomorrow. But a question in return: it is not clear to me how we formally distinguish the cases of "translation" and "cultural equivalent". We should IMHO distinguish a lexical substituion that has no change form an ontological point of view and a lexical substituion that implies a change from an ontological point of view. Best, Philipp. Am 20.02.14 22:13, schrieb John P. McCrae: > Well... we shouldn't say this. > > We also shouldn't be saying things like "directly ontologically > related either through subsumption or via a shared superconcept." > (which is meaningless, as everything has a shared superconcept owl:Thing). > > The reason is as follows: "lexical" translation is a "lexical" > property defined in the "lexicon", as such the definitions should be > explainable in lexical. Or put another way, if we wish to say two word > senses have the same reference, we can do that giving them the same > reference! The translation property indicates that there is a lexical > substitution possible in the translation process. > > We should also be more careful about implications on the ontology. In > particular, we wrote a paper about this, and it is very clear from > that paper that equivalence of sense can not imply equivalence of > references: http://www.lemon-model.net/papers/senses.pdf > > Regards, > John > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: > > John, all, > > The thing is that we define "Translation" as implying same > references. That has an implication, although we do not model this > axiomatically. > > Are we on the same line? > > Philipp. > > Am 20.02.14 21:55, schrieb John P. McCrae: >> Hi >> >> I don't think we should be able to infer any ontological relation >> especially not owl:sameAs from a translation property. The >> translation property simply means that you could consider one of >> the senses to "align" with the foreign term in translation (with >> the definition of align being fuzzy). We merely distinguish >> between translations and cultural-equivalent, which describe >> whether there is an intentional change in the meaning of a >> sentence. If you want to say that there is ontological >> equivalence that should be done in the ontology only. >> >> To answer Philipp's earlier question, some interesting examples >> of cognates are "Tisch"@de (=table) and "discus"@la (=disc) or >> "mandibola"@it (=jaw) and "mandibles"@en >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Philipp Cimiano >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >> Dear Gilles, >> >> yes you are right. I understand that this might negatively >> affect the usability of the model. And I am fully aware that >> people might use it sloppily, actually without to many >> unwanted implications as long as you do not use an OWL >> reasoner ;-) >> >> The alternative would be to give up the distinction between >> semantics-preserving interlingual variants (translation) and >> non-semantics-preserving interlingual variants (cultural >> equivalents), or call them differently and make translation >> the superclass. >> >> Any opinions on this? I tend to see "translation" indeed as >> semantics-preserving, but this is only a gut feeling and not >> well-founded. >> >> Another issue: we discussed having a third type of >> Interlingual variant, something like a "cross-lingual >> paraphrase" class for the case in which "paella" is >> paraphrased in English as "typical rice dish from Spanish >> origin". >> >> Elena: I think this is what you had in mind, right? >> >> Regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 20.02.14 21:31, schrieb Gilles Sérasset: >>> Dear Philipp, >>> >>> Thanks, this clarifies the matter. >>> >>> Tough I fear that the encoding of legacy lexica in ontolex >>> will not be very easy, as most of the time, such lexica does >>> not really make the difference... I fear many ontolex >>> encoded lexica will use the Translation relation regardless >>> of the implications when linked to an ontology. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gilles, >>> >>> On 20 févr. 2014, at 20:40, Philipp Cimiano >>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Gilles, >>>> >>>> thanks for your comment. Yes indeed, if we use >>>> "Translation" in the case you mention, we would infer that >>>> concept:rice owl:sameAs concept:cooked_rice. >>>> >>>> We would infer equality of punned individuals. Technically, >>>> it does not follow though that the concepts are equivalent. >>>> It is a delicate OWL2 issue. >>>> >>>> In any case, your statement is correct. If that is not as >>>> intended in your example (which I assume) then in your case >>>> the relation "CulturalEquivalent" should be used which is >>>> supposed to be used in exactly such a case where there is >>>> some direct ontological relation between both concepts, in >>>> our case concept:rice subsumes concept:cooked_rice. >>>> >>>> So the use of "Translation" is wrong in your case because >>>> it has unwanted implications. >>>> >>>> Do you agree? >>>> >>>> Philipp. >>>> >>>> Am 20.02.14 10:02, schrieb Gilles Sérasset: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question regarding Translation. >>>>> >>>>> Lets take the japanese of 御飯 (gohan), which has a >>>>> meaning of "cooked rice". >>>>> Lets take the english term "rice" (which refers to cooked >>>>> or uncooked rice, indistinctly. >>>>> >>>>> I consider both terms as translations of each others, even >>>>> if they do not share the reference. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, I do think that the Translation relation is >>>>> useful, as the lexicon should exist even if no >>>>> conceptualization is available. It is also really useful >>>>> to encode existing lexica. >>>>> >>>>> But with this definition, if my lexicon state that gohan >>>>> is a translation of rice, then we would legitimately infer >>>>> that concept:rice owl:sameAs concept:cooked_rice. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it a problem in itself ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Gilles, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 févr. 2014, at 16:22, Philipp Cimiano >>>>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Elena, >>>>>> >>>>>> just to clarify intuitions. I am calling a Translation >>>>>> something which preserves the reference (no matter if >>>>>> literal or not). >>>>>> >>>>>> So according to what I have now it holds that: >>>>>> >>>>>> Class: var:Translation >>>>>> >>>>>> SubclassOf: >>>>>> ontolex:InterlingualVariant >>>>>> ontolex:TermVariant >>>>>> >>>>>> rdfs:comment "The relation between two lexical senses in different languages the references of which are the same."@en >>>>>> >>>>>> So this means that Translation is a relation between two >>>>>> Lexical Senses in different languages the reference of >>>>>> which is the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, CulturalEquivalent (or simply >>>>>> Equivalent!) is defined as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Class: var:CulturalEquivalent >>>>>> >>>>>> SubclassOf: >>>>>> ontolex:InterlingualVariant >>>>>> ontolex:SemanticVariant >>>>>> >>>>>> rdfs:comment "The relation between two lexical senses in different languages the references of which are directly ontologically related either through subsumption or via a shared superconcept."@en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i.e. the references are directly ontologically related, >>>>>> does this make sense? >>>>>> >>>>>> Philipp. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 13.02.14 16:10, schrieb Philipp Cimiano: >>>>>>> Hi Elena, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> see below >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 13.02.14 13:13, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda: >>>>>>>> Dear Philipp, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates. >>>>>>>> I have direclty modified the text in the specification >>>>>>>> (maybe I should not?), but we can still reconsider this... >>>>>>>> On the one hand, I thought it is important to specify >>>>>>>> already at the introduction that there is one type of >>>>>>>> variation that is established between LexicalEntries >>>>>>>> (i.e., define LexicalVariants), how do you see it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes fine, I should remove the restriction from Variants >>>>>>> that requires LexicalSense, I will do it now. >>>>>>>> On the other, I was not so happy with the "terminology" >>>>>>>> used when dealing with cross-lingual variants, >>>>>>>> specifically when stating that Translations are literal >>>>>>>> translations... >>>>>>> Fair enough, if the idea is removing "literal" I am >>>>>>> agnostic ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From the Translation discipline perspective, this would >>>>>>>> be problematic, IMHO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * I think we should refer to them as Translations or >>>>>>>> Interlingual variants (in general). That is what >>>>>>>> people interested in multilinguality will be >>>>>>>> looking for, I think. If you think that the >>>>>>>> MultiWordNet community would be happier with >>>>>>>> Inter-lingual variant is fine, but the translation >>>>>>>> or terminology community will be looking for >>>>>>>> "translation". Would it be feasible to keep both >>>>>>>> denominations? Since this is a lexicon model (for >>>>>>>> ontologies, of course, but still we are at the >>>>>>>> lexical level), I would be inclined to think that >>>>>>>> the most appropriate term is translation, but I am >>>>>>>> open to change my mind... :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, so why not having "InterlingualVariant" as a >>>>>>> subClass of "TermVariant" (instead of >>>>>>> TerminologyVariant) and then >>>>>>> Translation and CulturalEquivalent and >>>>>>> "CulturalParaphase" as subclasses of InterlingualVariant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would that be appropriate? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * As for the types of translation we may account for, >>>>>>>> I would talk of "equivalents", but not identify >>>>>>>> "translations" exclusivly and explicitly with >>>>>>>> "literal translations". I was trying to make this >>>>>>>> clear during out last telco, but maybe I failed... >>>>>>>> :) That is why I was proposing direct equivalents, >>>>>>>> to distinguish them from cultural equivalents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair enough, if you are arguing for dropping the >>>>>>> "literal" I am fine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for the question in your e-mail referring to >>>>>>>> "paraphrase", yes, I think we could put it that way... >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Elena >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 13/02/2014 10:02, Philipp Cimiano escribió: >>>>>>>>> Hi Elena, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have updated the wiki reflecting the discussion of >>>>>>>>> last week; however, I have not introduced >>>>>>>>> SenseRelations explicitly yet. I am not sure we should. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, we agree in principle on the categories >>>>>>>>> mentioned by you Elena, but I have one question on the >>>>>>>>> lexical equivalent: this is essentially a paraphrase, >>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Philipp. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 07.02.14 17:27, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda: >>>>>>>>>> Dear John, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the summary (Philipp, do not stay away... >>>>>>>>>> we missed you... ;)). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding the Translation part, I think we had a nice >>>>>>>>>> discussion, but we need to work a little bit more on >>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>> I tend to think of Term Variants as within the same >>>>>>>>>> language (intra-lingua), and Translations between >>>>>>>>>> languages (inter-lingua). For this reason, I am not >>>>>>>>>> so sure I would like to consider Translation a Term >>>>>>>>>> Variant, but I will further think about it... :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In a paper we at UPM just got accepted at the LREC >>>>>>>>>> conference, we were proposing 3 different types of >>>>>>>>>> *translation equivalents*. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. *direct equivalent *(what people normally >>>>>>>>>> understad as "pure translation"): The two terms >>>>>>>>>> describe semantically equivalent entities that >>>>>>>>>> refer to entities that exist in both cultures and >>>>>>>>>> languages. E.g. surrogate mother, madre de >>>>>>>>>> alquiler, mère porteuse. It is true that they >>>>>>>>>> could further be considered *dimensional >>>>>>>>>> variants*, since each language/culture emphasizes >>>>>>>>>> a different aspect of the concept. >>>>>>>>>> 2. *cultural equivalent*: Typically, the two terms >>>>>>>>>> describe entities that are not semantically but >>>>>>>>>> pragmatically equivalent, since they describe >>>>>>>>>> similar situations in different cultures and >>>>>>>>>> languages. E.g., “Ecole Normal” (FR) “Teachers >>>>>>>>>> college” (EN). The Prime Minister and >>>>>>>>>> Busdeskanzler example would also be valid here. >>>>>>>>>> And I think this is the type of *link or >>>>>>>>>> cross-lingual alignment you would use in >>>>>>>>>> **Interlingual Indexes for WordNets when no >>>>>>>>>> "direct equivalent" in available*. >>>>>>>>>> 3. *lexical equivalent*: It is said of those terms >>>>>>>>>> in different languages that usually point to the >>>>>>>>>> same entity, but one of the verbalizes the >>>>>>>>>> original term by using target language words. >>>>>>>>>> E.g., “Ecole Normal” (FR) “(French) Normal >>>>>>>>>> School” (EN). The concept of Normal School does >>>>>>>>>> not exist in England, but English people have >>>>>>>>>> verbalized it in English. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does it make sense? >>>>>>>>>> We will also work on this and update the wiki with >>>>>>>>>> examples/code accordingly. >>>>>>>>>> Have a nice weekend! >>>>>>>>>> Elena. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> El 07/02/2014 16:59, Philipp Cimiano escribió: >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> very nice, it seems that the telco was very >>>>>>>>>>> productive without me, I should consider staying >>>>>>>>>>> away now and then ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will work this into the current document next week. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Philipp. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.02.14 16:29, schrieb John P. McCrae: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So today at the telco we had myself, Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>> Francesca, Elena and Lupe. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed based on Philipp's proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I propose we go with the following four >>>>>>>>>>>> variants + translation: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) FormVariant: Relation between two forms of >>>>>>>>>>>> one lexical entry >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) LexicalVariant: Relation between two lexical >>>>>>>>>>>> entries that are related by some well-defined >>>>>>>>>>>> string-operation (e.g. creating an initialism >>>>>>>>>>>> like in FAO) >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) TerminlogicalVariant: Relation between two >>>>>>>>>>>> lexical senses (with the same reference) of two >>>>>>>>>>>> lexical entries; the lexical entries are thus >>>>>>>>>>>> uniquely determined; the senses might have >>>>>>>>>>>> different contextual and pragmatic conditions >>>>>>>>>>>> (register, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>> 4) SemanticVariant: As 3) Relation between >>>>>>>>>>>> senses with references that are ontologically >>>>>>>>>>>> related, either by subsumption or are children >>>>>>>>>>>> of a common superconcept (see my paella and >>>>>>>>>>>> risotto example) >>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Translation: As with 3), but involving >>>>>>>>>>>> entries from different languages. >>>>>>>>>>>> So we would have one relation between forms >>>>>>>>>>>> (FormVariant), one relation between lexical >>>>>>>>>>>> entries (LexicalVariant), and three relations >>>>>>>>>>>> at the sense level (TerminologicalVariant, >>>>>>>>>>>> SemanticVariant and Translation). >>>>>>>>>>>> We might think about introducing a >>>>>>>>>>>> SenseRelation as a superclass of >>>>>>>>>>>> TerminologicalVariant, SemanticVariant and >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation. Hypernym and Hyponym would also be >>>>>>>>>>>> a SenseRelation in this sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The discussion was as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>> *Form variants*: We discussed the need to >>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish form (inflectional) variants as opposed >>>>>>>>>>>> to lexical (entry) variants. The primary reason for >>>>>>>>>>>> this was to separate variation between >>>>>>>>>>>> LexicalEntrys and Form (as defined in the core). It >>>>>>>>>>>> was felt that the distinction between form and >>>>>>>>>>>> lexical variant was too fine-grained and that the >>>>>>>>>>>> modelling of this as variants is probably not >>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. For example, if we consider >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> :Cat a LexicalEntry >>>>>>>>>>>> ontolex:canonicalForm :Cat#CanonicalForm >>>>>>>>>>>> (writtenRep "cat"@eng), >>>>>>>>>>>> ontolex:otherForm :Cat#PluralForm (writtenRep >>>>>>>>>>>> "cats"@eng) . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then modelling the relationship as >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> :Cat#CanonicalForm ontolex:plural :Cat#PluralForm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is inferior to (especially in the case that there >>>>>>>>>>>> are large number of inflections of a single lemma, >>>>>>>>>>>> such as an Italian verb) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> :Cat#CanonicalForm ontolex:number ontolex:singular . >>>>>>>>>>>> :Cat#PluralForm ontolex:number ontolex:plural . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For these reasons, it was preferred not to >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce form variants >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Term(inological)Variants/SemanticVariant: *We >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with the idea of introducing a superclass >>>>>>>>>>>> SenseRelation subsuming both TermVariants and >>>>>>>>>>>> SemanticVariants as follows >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * TermVariants have the same reference (e.g., >>>>>>>>>>>> diachronic, diatopic etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>> * SemanticVariants have different references >>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., antonymy, "similar", (maybe?) hypernymy) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It was also suggested to shorten the name >>>>>>>>>>>> TerminologicalVariant to TermVariant >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Translation: *We discussed the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing between (Lemma/Term) >>>>>>>>>>>> *Translation* and *Culturally-Equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation *by saying *Translation * is a >>>>>>>>>>>> *TermVariant * and *Culturally-Equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation* is a *Semantic Variant.* >>>>>>>>>>>> It was suggested that we consider introducing a >>>>>>>>>>>> class *MultilingualVariant** subsuming *Translation >>>>>>>>>>>> *and*C.E.T. *and subsumed by *SenseRelation, *for >>>>>>>>>>>> relations between languages, this would also >>>>>>>>>>>> include broader/narrower cross-lingual alignments >>>>>>>>>>>> as used in Interlingual Indexes for WordNets etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> * or cross-lingual variant or inter-lingual variant >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I attach a diagram to show the proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>>>>>>>>> Raum 2.307 >>>>>>>>>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>>>>>>>>> Inspiration 1 >>>>>>>>>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda >>>>>>>>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) >>>>>>>>>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial >>>>>>>>>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos >>>>>>>>>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n >>>>>>>>>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España >>>>>>>>>> www.oeg-upm.net <http://www.oeg-upm.net/> >>>>>>>>>> Tel.(+34) 91 336 36 70 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20336%2036%2070> >>>>>>>>>> Fax(+34) 91 352 48 19 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20352%2048%2019> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>>>>>>> Raum 2.307 >>>>>>>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>>>>>>> Inspiration 1 >>>>>>>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda >>>>>>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) >>>>>>>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial >>>>>>>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos >>>>>>>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n >>>>>>>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España >>>>>>>> www.oeg-upm.net <http://www.oeg-upm.net/> >>>>>>>> Tel.(+34) 91 336 36 70 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20336%2036%2070> >>>>>>>> Fax(+34) 91 352 48 19 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20352%2048%2019> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>>>>> Raum 2.307 >>>>>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>>>>> Inspiration 1 >>>>>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>>> >>>>>> 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> >>>>>> >>>>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>>>> Raum 2.307 >>>>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>>>> Inspiration 1 >>>>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gilles Sérasset >>>>> GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 >>>>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 >>>>> <tel:%2B33%204%2076%2051%2043%2080> Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>> >>>> 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> >>>> >>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>> Raum 2.307 >>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>> Inspiration 1 >>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>> >>> -- >>> Gilles Sérasset >>> GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 >>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 <tel:%2B33%204%2076%2051%2043%2080> >>> Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 <tel:%2B33%C2%A04%2076%2063%2056%2086> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> >> 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> >> >> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >> Raum 2.307 >> Universität Bielefeld >> Inspiration 1 >> 33619 Bielefeld >> >> > > > -- > > Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano > > 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> > > Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) > Raum 2.307 > Universität Bielefeld > Inspiration 1 > 33619 Bielefeld > > -- Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano Phone: +49 521 106 12249 Fax: +49 521 106 12412 Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) Raum 2.307 Universität Bielefeld Inspiration 1 33619 Bielefeld
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 21:28:03 UTC