W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to "originatedFrom"? [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:11:00 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8cd1e36f2d323e5655b5a72b1994c7ado5ABB608l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FD5C434.2030501@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

I think it's good, it conveys better the notion.

Instead of talking about writer, i suggest we talk about people 
(actually, they may have not
written something, but may have spoken about it).


However, thinking about this, what's the implication for types? if agent 
and entity are in the range,
then this is not a subtype of derivation.

To avoid the term writer I would suggest to rewrite as follows.

A primary source for a topic refers to people or material produced by 
people with direct experience and knowledge about the topic, at the time 
of the topic's study, without benefit from hindsight.

Because of the directness of primary sources, they "speak for 
themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of 
secondary sources. As such, it is important for secondary sources to 
reference those primary sources from which they were derived, so that 
their reliability can be investigated.

A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of 
secondary materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that 
the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and 
should be done according to conventions accepted within the 
application's domain.

Cheers,
Luc


On 08/06/2012 18:54, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
>
> Now that I understand the intent of Primary Source, I'd like to try to 
> get a definition that communicates it effectively.
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> Sorry, guys, please give me a definition/text/examples for this, I 
>> have been trying for six months …
>
> I've included one below.
>
>>
>> I thought we wanted to keep a subtype of derivation, Tim, but you 
>> seem also to introduce a type of entity.
>> I find this is becoming too heavy.
>
> Sorry, I kept my proposal to reflect the "relation only" aspect that 
> DM currently has for primary topic.
>
>
>
>
> From what I gather, the discussion at 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source helped many group members 
> to understand the intent behind the term.
> Currently, I do not find that the same message is reflected in the DM, 
> which I'm quoting below.
>
> Luc had also pointed out 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#derivation-generation-generation-ordering
> as being particularly relevant to my point "A primary source (also 
> called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a 
> recording, or other source of information that was created at the time 
> under study."
>
> So, my definition, proposing to replace the current DM's definition 
> and example:
>
> =========== PROPOSED =======
> A primary source refers to material whose writer has direct experience 
> and knowledge about the topic in question; the writing of such 
> materials is done at the time under study and does not benefit from 
> hindsight.
> A primary source may also be the writer of such material. Because of 
> the directness of primary sources, they "speak for themselves" in ways 
> that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources. As 
> such, it is important for secondary sources to reference those primary 
> sources from which they were derived, so that their reliability can be 
> investigated.
>
> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation of 
> secondary materials from their primary sources. It is recognized that 
> the determination of primary sources can be up to interpretation, and 
> should be done according to conventions accepted within the 
> application's domain.
>
> Example 32
>
> Let us consider Charles Joseph Minard's flow map of Napoleon's March 
> in 1812, which was published in 1869. Although the map is not a 
> primary source, Minard probably used the journal of Pierre-Irénée 
> Jacob, pharmacist to Napoleon's army during the Russian campaign. This 
> primary source relation can be encoded in the following prov-n 
> expressions.
>
> entity(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813)
> entity(ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII)
> wasDerivedFrom(ex:la-campagne-de-Russie-1812-1813, 
> ex:revue-d-Histoire-de-la-Pharmacie-t-XVIII,
>                [ prov:type='prov:Source' ])
> =============================
>
>
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> Some materials accumulated while trying to piece together the proposal:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =========  DM   =====
> A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to the 
> person, information, period, or idea being studied.
>
> A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation that aims 
> to give credit to the source that originated some information. It is 
> recognized that it may be hard to determine which entity constitutes a 
> primary source. This definition is inspired by original-source as 
> defined in 
> http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html.
>
> Example 32
> Let us consider the concept introduced in the current section, 
> identified as dm:concept-primary-source, and the Google 
> page go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html, where the notion 
> original-source was originally described (to the knowledge of the 
> authors).
>
> entity(dm:concept-primary-source)
> entity(go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html)
> wasDerivedFrom(dm:concept-primary-source, 
> go:credit-where-credit-is-due.html,
>                [ prov:type='prov:HadPrimarySource' ])
>
> ==============
>
>
>
> ==== 
> http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html===
>
> "original-source indicates the URL of the first article to report on a 
> story. We encourage publishers to use this metatag to give credit to 
> the source that broke the story. We recognize that this can sometimes 
> be tough to determine. But the intent of this tag is to reward hard 
> work and journalistic enterprise."
>
> Tim is concerned that "the first article to report a story" may not 
> actually be a primary source as discussed by wikipedia's Primary Source.
>
> =============
>
>
> ====== some clips from wikipedia ========
> "primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the 
> benefit of hindsight"
> "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not 
> primary"
> "a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an 
> artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that 
> was created at the time under study."
> "a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a 
> situation, or a document created by such a person."
> "an important objective of classifying sources [as primary] is to 
> determine the independence and reliability of sources"
> "they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through 
> the filter of secondary sources"
> "modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, 
> as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate 
> or not, offer new input into historical questions"
> "used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, 
> and other information that is passed from one author to another."
>
> "In scientific literature, a primary source is the original 
> publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories. 
> In political history, primary sources are documents such as official 
> reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by 
> participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts. In 
> the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources 
> are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals."
>
> "In a broader sense primary sources also include artifacts 
> like photographs, newsreels, coins, paintings or buildings created at 
> the time."
>
> "Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created 
> by the people involved, at the time being studied."
> "Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into 
> historical questions"
> "primary sources have the most direct connection to the past, and 
> that they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured 
> through the filter of secondary sources"
> =======================
>
>
> =========== 
> http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html 
>    ======
> "They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events 
> or conditions being documented."
> =================
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 06/06/2012 01:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> Luc,
>>>
>>> Regarding the name,
>>> Yes, I think we agreed on hadPrimarySource.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Though, looking at the definition at 
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-primary-source 
>>> :
>>>
>>>    A primary source refers to the source material that is closest to 
>>> the person, information, period, or idea being studied.
>>>
>>> 1) A primary source relation is a particular case of derivation 
>>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#concept-derivation> 
>>> that aims to give credit to the source that originated some 
>>> information. It is recognized that it may be hard to determine which 
>>> entity constitutes a primary source. This definition is inspired by 
>>> original-source as defined in 
>>> http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html.
>>>
>>> does not lead me think of what is described at 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
>>>
>>> 2) A primary source (also called *original source* or *evidence*) is 
>>> an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information 
>>> that was created at the time under study.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #1 still gives me this loose bloggy feel, and not the curation feel 
>>> that I think is important for Primary Sources.
>>>
>>> While #2 claims "it's hard to determine", I disagree, #1 is clear 
>>> that it must have been "created at the time under study".
>>>
>>> I suggesting making #2 the definition, and attenuating the emphasis 
>>> on 
>>> http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html (by 
>>> perhaps stating that "in the blogosphere, Primary source is a 
>>> concern as discussed by googlenewsblog)
>>>
>>> -Tim
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:43 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. It remains as such.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Luc Moreau 
>>>> <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>> hasPrimarySource or hadPrimarySource?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the definition remaining unchanged beyond s/original/primary/ ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/06/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>> I believe that the consensus is to rename it to PrimarySource.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hasPrimarySource
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that correct, Jim, Tim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Luc 
>>>>>> Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
>>>>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Paul, Tim, Jim, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the consensus on this? What definition and name do you 
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> adopt for this
>>>>>>> relation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hadPrimarySource is much clearer. Anyone who has paid 
>>>>>>>>> attention in history
>>>>>>>>> class (at least in the US) should be familiar with the idea of 
>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>> sources, so I think it's probably the most useful term.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl 
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi TIm,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think i'm bending your way. If other's think primary source 
>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>> intelligible then I'm happy to change this.
>>>>>>>>>> I think Luc also finally "got' this relation when I pointed 
>>>>>>>>>> him to the
>>>>>>>>>> wiki page so maybe that says something as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu 
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the same intent as the google definition of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> original source in
>>>>>>>>>>>> my reading of their post. I would consider  primary source 
>>>>>>>>>>>> but think
>>>>>>>>>>>> original source has some history of usage on the web already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where on the web is "original source" used?
>>>>>>>>>>> Blogging?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anywhere else?
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a blogger, and I haven't seen "original source".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, orginalsource had the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, did we shift from the meaning taken from that Google 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> journalism ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which, I can't find in any public draft, so I guess "yes"…)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the description at 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       __much__ better,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had no idea that that was the intent of hadOriginalSource.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since wikipedia choose the name "primary", perhaps we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be in favor of renaming:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        hadOriginalSource ->    hadPrimarySource
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that I understand the concept, I'd rather this than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "originatedFrom", which is drastically different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me a "big change" now is changing stuff that has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a number of drafts. I won't really argue hard but I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced that this is worth it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's reasonable. But perhaps it indicates that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bigger problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are out of the way now :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Timothy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think hadOriginalSource and originatedFrom 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convey the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that they are pretty close in meaning, and one 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming style more appropriately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also a bit concerned about doing these big renames of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you measure "big"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Tim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Provenance Working 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Group Issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-395: Rename hadOriginalSource to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "originatedFrom"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [prov-dm]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/395
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DM editors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could hadOriginalSource be renamed to "originatedFrom" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it follows the "wasDerivedFrom" naming a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely, and avoids an exception to PROV-O's "has" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming convention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, perhaps the Involvement "Source" could be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renamed "Origin"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And qualifiedSource would become qualifiedOrigin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that this naming is a little more natural.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (yes, this is phrased in terms of PROV-O, but an issue 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on DM;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably best product would be mapping prov-dm<->     
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  prov-o...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation&    Reasoning Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation&    Reasoning Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation&    Reasoning Group
>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation&    Reasoning Group
>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>>>>>>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>>>>>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jim McCusker
>>>>>>>>> Programmer Analyst
>>>>>>>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>>>>>>>>> Yale School of Medicine
>>>>>>>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | 
>>>>>>>>> (203) 785-6330
>>>>>>>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu 
>>>>>>>>> <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PhD Student
>>>>>>>>> Tetherless World Constellation
>>>>>>>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>>>>>>>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
>>>>>>>>> http://tw.rpi.edu <http://tw.rpi.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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 <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm 
>>>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 
>>>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm 
>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl <mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>)
>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ <http://www.few.vu.nl/%7Epgroth/>
>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
>>>> Department of Computer Science
>>>> VU University Amsterdam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>      
>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 10:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC