- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:51:51 +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: <530678F7.8080308@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all, I would like to invite you all to the 44th (!) Friday ontolex telco, at 15:00 (CET). See this link for access details: https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.21.02,_15-16_pm_CET I think our only topic is to finally sort out the translation / variant issues. Talk to you tomorrow, Philipp. Am 20.02.14 22:36, schrieb John P. McCrae: > Yes, I am not sure "normal people" understand what is meant by > "subsumption" or "shared superconcept" either! > > Gilles' example is essentially the same as the translation > "gehen"=>"to go" from German to English > > I can say that "ich gehe zum Post"/"I go to the post office" but most > Germans look at me funny when I say "ich gehe nach Rußland" (for > non-Germans this implies I am walking to Russia) > > As such we can say that "gehen" has reference "MovementByWalking" and > "to go" has reference "Movement". If we take the definition of > translation as it stands, this means that "gehen" is not a translation > of "to go". The only solution would be to create an extra sense of "to > go" in English that refers to "MovementByWalking", which is an > artificial solution from the point of view in English. > > I don't think it is a good solution either to say that "gehen" and "to > go" are cultural equivalents for obvious reasons. > > Regards, > John > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: > > 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 <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 21:52:23 UTC