Re: Summary of Telco 07.02.2014

Hi all,

Reading through the spec, I have 3 main comments to discuss


   1. Why do we only talk about reified variation, cannot I not use a
   single property to link senses?
   2. Why do we propose using a property to indicate the type of variation
   unless it is a translation, when we introduce a subclass?
   3. How do we intend to define "translation confidence", this is surely a
   property that is specific to each resource?

Regards,
John


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

>  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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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, Españawww.oeg-upm.net
>>>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
>>>> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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, Españawww.oeg-upm.net
>>>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
>>>> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   --
>>>>  Gilles Sérasset
>>>> GETALP-LIG                         BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9
>>>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80                   Fax:   +33 4 76 63 56 86
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  Gilles Sérasset
>>>> GETALP-LIG                         BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9
>>>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 <%2B33%204%2076%2051%2043%2080>
>>>>     Fax:   +33 4 76 63 56 86 <%2B33%C2%A04%2076%2063%2056%2086>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>