- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:56:37 +0000
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3c.org" <public-prov-wg@w3c.org>
On 11 Jun 2011, at 17:18, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > Sorry - I'm still having trouble understanding your issue - is 'relationship' the IVP of T relationship? > No, sorry the word relationship in the definition (relationship between process execution and X) A call is a good idea. Luc > (Should we try to arrange a call rather than exchange emails to make progress?) > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sent: Sat 6/11/2011 2:00 AM > To: Myers, Jim > Cc: public-prov-wg@w3c.org > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of' > > Jim, > > I had no concern. I wanted a clarification. > - a point in time before which X does not exist, and after which it exists > - a point in time within the duration of a process execution > That's clear. > > I don't think the word relationship conveys this meaning of a transition/event/action though. > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 11 Jun 2011, at 03:56, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> Luc, >> I must be missing something = something is being generated/created by a process and you don't think that the sequence >> Process start before X creation date before process ends is correct? If I'm phrasing it right, I think this is just the same set of constraints as in OPM for artifacts generated by a process. >> >> Would your concern be different if I said X is an IVPT as you are defining them? (I'd say X has an IVPT relation to Y but X would still be something like a cake that appears to derive from things that are clearly not cake-like/other states of cake). >> >> -- Jim >> >> On 10 Jun 2011, at 21:02, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> In this definition, you say when X didn't exist(before P) but you >>> don't say >>>> when it starts to exist. Is it intended? >>> >>> I updated the wiki as follows: >>> * X did not exist before P began, >>> * X began to exist sometime before P ended, and >>> * X would not have begun existing if P had not occurred/P was necessary >>> for X's existence to happen. >> >> Doesn't this say X began to exist between the start and end of P? >> >> Luc >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Also, did you really mean before P began? Can you explain why ? >>> >>> If X is generated by P, it can't have existed before P did. I think this >>> is just saying P must start before the creation of X if X is generated >>> by P. >>> >>> Is it a matter of wording or is something mixed up logically? >>>> >>>> Can X change, i don't understand what happens then? Does the last >>> condition >>>> necessarily apply? >>> >>> The generated thing/resource X can change after being generated, but >>> only in ways consistent with its definition/type. An egg (defined as an >>> ovoid object produced by a chicken) generated by a chicken can >>> participate in boiling and painting (but I can't say what color such an >>> egg is since color is not part of the definition of what makes one >>> instance of the egg class unique/identifiable.) Other definitions of egg >>> (IVPTs of each other) differ in how mutable they are. If you want a >>> fairly immutable concept of egg, define it as a ovoid product of a >>> chicken that has a particular color, is cooked/uncooked, >>> cracked/uncracked, etc. Then we can talk about the Easter Egg that was >>> derived from the uncooked/uncolored egg from a particular chicken >>> through a series of processes. (Or, we could just say that after being >>> generated, the egg sat and at some point we recognized that it existed >>> in a state that corresponds to our notion of Easter egg and we assert >>> that EasterEgg Y is an IVPT of egg X.) >>> >>> Does the last condition apply? - Is that "must there always be a Y that >>> X is an IVPT of"? I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes in any >>> practical sense. By the IVPT definition I posted, all I need is some >>> process P that would destroy/consume X and define Y as "X considered >>> mutable with respect to P" - "the idea of this egg that would be >>> unaffected even by the end of the universe" or some such might be the >>> end of the line though. >>>> >>>> Are you also saying there needs to be another notion? Modification? >>> >>> I think the other notion is some form of participation (also uploaded >>> definitions there). I was saying participates in/is modified by for the >>> thing/process relationship. (Agency/control would be one form of >>> participation). The egg layed by the chicken participates in boiling and >>> coloring during its lifetime. It is not modified in the sense that any >>> part of what identifies it changes, but attributes of it we consider >>> transient (can't be used to discover this egg reliably because they >>> change) do change. >>> >>> -- Jim >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>> University of Southampton >>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>> United Kingdom >>>> >>>> On 10 Jun 2011, at 18:14, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Posted on the wiki - basically the same definition as from Jun and >>>>> Daniel with more discussion of how the IVPT concept and the idea of >>>>> modifiable objects relate. >>>>> -- Jim >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:57 PM >>>>>> To: Myers, Jim >>>>>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3c.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT >>> of' >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you put forward a revised definition that addresses better >>> your >>>>>> concerns? >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science >>>>>> University of Southampton >>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>>>>> United Kingdom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 Jun 2011, at 17:51, "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jim >>>>>>>> I think we are discussing two issues here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. You suggest that the egg is itself an IVPT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are different ways of looking at this: >>>>>>>> a. I was saying that an egg was a thing (identified, and typed >>>>>>> according to >>>>>>>> an ontology) >>>>>>>> Then, it's a question of choice of a same ontology, or >>>>>>> ontology >>>>>>>> refinement, a classical problem, >>>>>>>> which we will not solve here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would claim the things in IVPT relationships with egg are also >>>>>>> things that can be identified, typed, etc., not necessarily in the >>>>>>> same class or ontology as 'egg'. (A logical picture is not the >>> same >>>>>>> class of thing as a jpg file corresponding to a particular >>>>>>> manifestation of that image). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b. We could say that there is in an alternate account, which >>>>>>> describes the >>>>>>>> egg in terms of molecules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes - my object in that account is 'set of molecules' and 'egg' is >>> a >>>>>>> convenient label for when those molecules are in a particular >>> subset >>>>>>> of all the configurations they can be in. If you say egg is an >>>>> object >>>>>>> and require a different type of thing to be used to describe >>> things >>>>>>> that invariant views of my set of molecules, I can't use it in my >>>>>>> account, and we don't yet have any mechanism to make it clear that >>>>>>> somehow my 'state of set of molecules' corresponds to your notion >>> of >>>>> 'egg'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> c. Alternatively, we have IVPTs of IVPTs of IVPTs ... >>>>>>>> is there a base case? I fear we are going to reach quantum >>>>>>> mechanics ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think we have to be afraid of this - and I would rephrase >>>>> and >>>>>>> say we have things of different types that can be in IVPT >>>>>>> relationships with each other and your concern is then whether the >>>>>>> fact that we can make deep hierarchies is an issue. I'd answer >>> that >>>>> by >>>>>>> saying that the base case is in the middle - things like eggs are >>>>>>> useful not because they are somehow true objects where other >>> things >>>>>>> are just views, they are useful views because of the >>> natural/common >>>>>>> processes they participate in. The fact that the model allows one >>> to >>>>>>> describe a set of quantum wave functions and claim one view of >>> them >>>>> is >>>>>>> an egg doesn't mean that this will happen in practice (though >>> there >>>>>>> are scientists who do essentially this on a daily basis at the >>>>> nano-scale). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether it is truly 'turtles all the way down' is a philosophical >>>>>>> question I'm not sure we have to answer - modeling it that way >>>>> covers >>>>>>> the middle ground without requiring any connection to real base >>>>>>> objects (or more neutrally, without identifying a particular set >>> of >>>>>>> objects as real with all others some form of constructed view) - >>> in >>>>>>> this sense, I would ask you a) whether you see a >>>>>>> consequence/limitation of a model that does not define which >>> objects >>>>>>> are 'real'? and b) given the debates about ontologies in the >>> world, >>>>> do >>>>>>> you think we can reach a consensus on what the base reality is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. You are commenting on the word modified. >>>>>>>> If I crack the egg, >>>>>>>> Y-> crack -> X >>>>>>>> Y and X are IVPTs of egg >>>>>>>> Y->X (we have a derivation) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So looking at generation only, I feel it's OK to say the egg >>>>> is >>>>>>> modified, since >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> have now a new IVPT Y about the same egg. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, could you maybe make some suggestions on how you would revise >>>>> the >>>>>>>> definition? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure what point you're making about the cracking example, >>>>> but >>>>>>> I'd say generation is just a case where we are more >>>>>>> familiar/comfortable with the thing produced by a process >>> execution >>>>> as >>>>>>> a useful thing to discuss/track the provenance of, and potentially >>>>>>> where the inputs of the process execution are uninteresting. A >>>>> chicken >>>>>>> lays an egg not because we can't talk about a set of atoms that >>> the >>>>>>> chicken rearranges into a state we want to identify as an egg but >>>>>>> because that view is not very useful, so identifying the 'set of >>>>> atoms >>>>>>> in the chicken' that is used to produce the egg or the 'set of >>>>> atoms' >>>>>>> that exists before and after egg laying that comprise the egg >>> after >>>>>>> laying isn't useful and we record chicken controls eggLaying which >>>>>>> generates egg. Both/all variant accounts are valid and consistent >>> in >>>>>>> the model I'm advocating, specifically egg does not change type >>> from >>>>>>> being a real object to a state of a set of atoms - 'set of atoms' >>> is >>>>> a >>>>>>> real thing that has a stateful view corresponding to a real thing >>>>>>> called an egg (an IVPT relation with egg). The fact that 99+% of >>> us >>>>>>> would just report generation of an egg and stop is OK (good in >>> fact >>>>> - >>>>>>> we don't want to needlessly talk about alternate views any more >>> than >>>>>>> we should feel pressure to expand all processes into fine grained >>>>>>> steps or include info about the movement of electrons in >>> describing >>>>>> computations). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 06/10/2011 02:28 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:26 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Myers, Jim >>>>>>>>>> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3c.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of >>> `IVPT >>>>>>> of' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I had not seen your comment in line, my responses are also >>>>> inline. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/06/11 02:28, Myers, Jim wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This would mean that a heating process modifies an egg to >>> create >>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> warm egg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it does not transform a cold egg into a warm egg? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or do you mean both - a process execution can turn one thing >>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> another, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> these things can be considered IVPTs of a thing that >>> participates >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the process >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> execution/ is modified by the process execution? And in an open >>>>>>> world >>>>>>>>>> assumption, a witness doesn't have to report the modified thing >>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> decline >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to identify/report either of things in IVPT roles depending on >>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ability to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> observe and the use case they wish to enable? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Luc Moreau >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 6:44 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Provenance Working Group WG >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT >>> of' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - if a new thing is created, it is clear that we have a new >>> IVPT >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> that thing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> if a chicken creates an egg is it just an IVPT of an egg? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would think the physical object is the egg. >>>>>>>>>> I thought we had agreed that for a provenance purpose, we had >>> to >>>>>>> talk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> an IVPT of that egg. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But 'the egg' is also an IVPT of the stuff that goes into the >>> cake >>>>> - >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> temporary 'state' in which yolk and white are together and not >>>>>>>>> mixed/chemically altered, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - if the thing is modified, then it is a requirement that a >>> new >>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (IVPT) is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> generated ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> otherwise, it would still be a view that existed before >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can't I say the egg was heated without reporting its cold and >>>>> warm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> states? I.e. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> don't we want to be able to report that something was modified >>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to report the IVPTs? A document was edited four times by >>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> people but I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> don't wan't to/can't tell you what each wrote at each stage? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These comments were made in the context of defining Generation >>> of >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IVPT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK - but you said "if the thing is modified"... For generation, >>> I >>>>>>>>> would say the chicken participates in an egg laying process >>>>>>> execution >>>>>>>>> that generates an 'egg'. That 'egg' is an IVPT of the chemicals >>> in >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> (which existed before). The 'egg' can also have further/more >>>>>>> stateful >>>>>>>>> IVPTs that are more useful for discussing heating, cracking, >>> etc. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> sense in which generation is special is that it is a derivation >>>>> from >>>>>>>>> things we don't consider logically an aspect/IVPT of something >>>>>>>>> greater. I.e. the 'mass of egg-bound chemicals' in the chicken >>>>> just >>>>>>>>> changes its state to become the 'egg', nothing really appears or >>>>>>>>> disappears (conservation of mass and energy). Unless/until a >>>>>>> scientist >>>>>>>>> wants to look at the potential for different processing of >>>>> chemicals >>>>>>>>> going into the egg versus those used to build the chicken's own >>>>>>> body, >>>>>>>>> 'mass of egg-bound chemicals' isn't something we'd usually think >>>>>>>>> about, but it's a valid perspective and consistent with the view >>>>> of >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> egg being generated (both views can be drawn on the same graph >>> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> way I've been describing). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The document was edited four times could be expressed by 4 >>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> execution >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and something like opm:wasTriggeredBy in between. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - if the process execution was taking a long time to >>>>> modify/create >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the thing, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> there is only one >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> instant at which the (invariant!) IVPT appears >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I thnk we could define it that way, but if a cracking process >>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> time, saying >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the cracked egg appears instantaneously basically means you >>> want >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 'cracked egg' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be defined by some threshold - the cracked egg might become >>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cracked >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> over time ) invariant only in that it is always above the >>>>> threshold >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> instance of the creation of the IVPT relationship occurs ata >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> aspecific instant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, agreed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - I think this captures well a stateful objects, where >>> processes >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> modify the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> object, resulting in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> different IVPTs corresponding to the various states >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IVPTs are not a separate kind of thing and their invariance is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> relative. If they >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are truly immutable sates/snapshopts, they can only exist for >>> an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> instant because >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> some part of the state of the thing (a part we may not care >>> about >>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as age) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> will change immediately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not sure I agree, here. IVPTs are a view/perspective on a >>>>>>> thing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should argue from the other direction - the notion of >>> a >>>>>>>>> thing is also a perspective/view. "eggs" don't exist - only >>>>>>> temporary >>>>>>>>> co-locations of particular molecules. Galton and Mizoguchi's >>> paper >>>>>>>>> argues that objects are defined by what processes you consider >>> to >>>>> be >>>>>>>>> internal to and external to the object - if you change the set >>> of >>>>>>>>> processes you are concerned about, you describe the world using >>>>>>>>> different objects. In this sense, eggs feel more 'real' because >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> set of processes we see happening frequently to them preserve >>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>> of their state, so egg as an IVPT is useful/predictive/etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alternative views asserted by other asserters may co-exit. >>>>>>>>>> - it's a decaying egg >>>>>>>>>> - it's a duck egg, not a hen egg >>>>>>>>>> - it's a chocolate egg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree, so again from the other direction - I don't see why >>> 'egg' >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> more real/more correct/more special than any of these, they're >>> all >>>>>>>>> IVPTs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is a requirement of any specific perspective to be >>> invariant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Invariant relative to a view in which only certain processes are >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> interest (are observable/reported?). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, it's not a snapshot of the global egg state, but it's a >>>>>>> snapshot >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> according to a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> view. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An analogy would be several cameras pointing to a same egg. >>>>>>>>>> From one camera, the egg is still, no change occurring. >>>>>>>>>> From the other, we see a crack appearing. >>>>>>>>>> So one asserter can describe change in a physical object, while >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> another does not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> describe any change. >>>>>>>>>> But it's the same egg. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right - those are two views of something. But that something is >>>>> just >>>>>>>>> another view - one camera sees a soup of chemicals that are >>>>> swirling >>>>>>>>> and mixing (slowly for an egg) while another sees one thing (the >>>>>>> egg). >>>>>>>>> Both of these are just IVPTs too. The chemical view is mutable >>> by >>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> processes than the egg view, but it is more persistent (it lasts >>>>>>>>> longer because we've defined it in a way that the processes that >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> create/destroy it are less frequent). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know that thinking of everything as an IVPT is not necessarily >>>>>>>>> intuitive, and that one can argue that it is just one way to >>> model >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> world/a philosophy, but I think it is a model that has the right >>>>>>>>> conceptual power to deal with the use cases we have (and the >>>>> general >>>>>>>>> set we can envision) while also being one that, in practice, >>> will >>>>>>> fade >>>>>>>>> away >>>>>>>>> - most people will agree that 'egg' and not 'mass of chemicals' >>> is >>>>> a >>>>>>>>> more useful IVPT to talk about and we'll see 'eggs' used in cake >>>>>>>>> baking and the world will mostly look like OPM (straight >>>>>>>>> thing-execution-thing chains), but we'll still have the power to >>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>> down and talk about cracking or go up and talk about >>> conservation >>>>> of >>>>>>> mass >>>>>>>> when needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I also don't know what a coherent alternative is that, once we >>> add >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> all the features necessary to cover the use cases, we'll like >>>>>>> better. >>>>>>>>> There are certainly other ways to model - my question really is >>>>>>>>> whether there are others that will end up being more intuitive >>>>> once >>>>>>>>> all the needed features are dropped in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Jim >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptGeneration#Definition_of_Gene >>>>>>>>>> r >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ation_by_Luc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau >>>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >>>>>>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >>>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: >>> l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>>>>>>> United Kingdom >>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>>>>>> >> >
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 18:57:31 UTC