Re: Summary of Telco 07.02.2014

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