- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:48:23 +0100
- To: <leora@cs.nyu.edu>
- Cc: "RIF (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 29 Sep 2009, at 15:22, Leora Morgenstern wrote: > What exactly does an addendum to the minutes mean? Can you give > examples > in previous minutes? > I meant, it is enough that it was on the list, and all these issues have been discussed (and assigned with actions) here: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-rif-minutes.html so, no need to bother further. thanks, Axel > Also, why put this as an addendum into the Sept. 1 minutes if indeed > it > was discussed on August 25? > > I would be happy to make the changes; I'm just not sure that the > discussion would fit into the Sept. 1 minutes, especially since both > the > referenced emails, and the threads they engendered, don't seem to > have any > postings between August 17 and September 15. > > Leora > > > > wasn't meant to be put into the minutes, but indeed as > > an addendum to the minutes... I think all the issues have been > > discussed thereafter. > > > > Axel > > > > p.s.: regrets for today's call. > > > > On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:50, Leora Morgenstern wrote: > > > >> Axel, > >> > >> > For the records: There were some small changes on DTB and some > >> > discussions about it: > >> > > >> > 1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0002.html > >> > 2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0011.html > >> > 3) I think I asked in the last TC whether we can/shall change the > >> > non-uniformity of the list-functions in DTB, which have a > >> different format > >> > (informal mappings only) to all the other functions and > predicates > >> in > >> > DTB. > >> > >> I checked the minutes of the August 25 telecon (which you scribed), > >> and > >> indeed, it seems that you did bring this up. > >> > >> However, I have no recollection of this being discussed at the > Sept. 1 > >> telecon, nor do my notes reflect it, so unless I hear from someone > >> that > >> they do remember this being discussed at the Sept. 1 telecon, I > >> think it > >> is best not to add this discussion to the minutes. > >> > >> > I could try to tackle that, but not before two weeks from now. > >> > > >> > With the resolution to go to CR, should I consider these > >> > resolved/accepted? > >> > >> > > >> > Axel > >> > > >> > p.s.: Belated regrets due to arrival of our child ;-). > >> > >> I have added you to the regrets list. > >> Congratulations! > >> > >> > > >> > Leora Morgenstern wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Attached are the minutes of the 1 September 2009 telecon. > >> >> > >> >> Please let me know of any corrections. > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> Leora > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D. > >> >> Visiting Research Scientist, Courant Institute of Mathematical > >> Sciences > >> >> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> > >> >> W3C <http://www.w3.org/> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> RIF Telecon 1-Sept-09 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 01 Sep 2009 > >> >> > >> >> Agenda > >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html > >> > > >> >> > >> >> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-irc> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Attendees > >> >> > >> >> Present > >> >> Harold Boley, Jos de Bruijn, Mark Dean, John Hall, Sandro > >> Hawke, > >> >> Stella Mitchell, Leora Morgenstern, Christian de Sainte > Marie, > >> >> Chris Welty > >> >> Regrets > >> >> Michael Kifer > >> >> Chair > >> >> Chris Welty > >> >> Scribe > >> >> Leora Morgenstern > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Contents > >> >> > >> >> * Topics <#agenda> > >> >> 1. admin <#item01> > >> >> 2. Liaison <#item02> > >> >> 3. Action Review <#item03> > >> >> 4. Exit Criteria <#item04> > >> >> 5. Publications <#item05> > >> >> 6. Implementations <#item06> > >> >> 7. Test Cases <#item07> > >> >> * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> admin > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Liaison > >> >> > >> >> sandro, chris: OWL, like RIF, relies on XSD 1.1., and that is > >> still in > >> >> candidate recommendation. > >> >> > >> >> sandro: prognosis for XML schema datatypes is not promising. > >> >> ... OWL will have an appendix referring to XML schema datatypes. > >> >> ... and RIF can do something similar. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> next item > >> >> > >> >> Nothing else in liaison. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> next item > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative > >> >> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it > also > >> >> work for RIF. [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-903 - Make sure if OWL does a > normative > >> >> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it > also > >> >> work for RIF. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Action Review > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> close action-902 > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-902 Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD > >> >> schema closed > >> >> > >> >> close action-898 > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-898 Answer faq 3.9 closed > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Exit Criteria > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> zakim ??p0 is me > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> P0 > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> zakim P0 is me > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> Thanks Jos > >> >> > >> >> Chris: The exit criteria for RIF are listed at > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: I am concerned that Chris's revision to my proposal --- > >> >> namely, reducing the requirement from implementing a dialect of > >> FLD to > >> >> merely specifying the dialect --- is putting the bar too low. > >> >> ... I don't think it's too high a burden to require an > >> implementation. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: I think it's an unnecessary burden. > >> >> ... Regarding Sandro's point that someone can just flip > through FLD > >> >> and figure out how to have some sort of (trivial?) > instantiation: > >> >> Someone can also just say that they have an implementation. > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Shouldn't they at least have to show that they can > read and > >> >> write XML? > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Implementation tests the dialect, not FLD. > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: I won't object; just wanted to make the point. > >> >> > >> >> Harold: Should we also require a syntax and semantics for the > >> dialect > >> >> specification? > >> >> > >> >> Chris thereupon made that change to the Exit Criteria. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 > >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 > >> > > >> >> as RIF CR Exit criteria > >> >> > >> >> <josb> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <Harold> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 > >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 > >> > > >> >> as RIF CR Exit criteria > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Publications > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Editors need to make changes to their Last Call > documents: > >> BLD, > >> >> PRD, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> , SWC, FLD, Core > >> >> ... Needs to be done by next week's meeting. > >> >> ... Assignments: Jos, SWC; Chris, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> ; Christian, PRD; Harold, BLD, FLD, Core. > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Even if no changes have been made, one needs to note > in the > >> >> document that there have been no changes since Last Call draft. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> target publication date: Setp 17 > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> try to approve WD pubs of Test and UCR on Sept 15. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> PROPOSED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, > >> SWC, and > >> >> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> +1 (W3C) > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> (IBM) > >> >> > >> >> <Harold> +1 (NRC) > >> >> > >> >> <josb> +1 (FUB) > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> +1 (OMG) > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 (self) > >> >> > >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (self) > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> RESOLVED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, > >> SWC, and > >> >> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Note that the statement of no changes or changes to last > >> call > >> >> drafts is CRITICAL PATH, and therefore should be done today or > >> tomorrow. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> "Change since the 3 July draft...." or "Changes since > the > >> >> Second Last Call draft of 3 July..." > >> >> > >> >> <josb> tomorrow is fine for SWC changes statement > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Implementations > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Since we have moved last call documents to candidate > >> >> recommendation, we are now in the call for implementations > period. > >> >> ... We had originally talked about a two-month period for > >> >> implementations. > >> >> ... To get out of CR, we need implementations. > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Yes, those are in the exit criteria. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/How_to_Submit_an_Implementation_Report > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: we want to point people to the above wiki page. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Now is the time to follow up with people who indicated in > >> the > >> >> comments that they would be interested in providing an > >> implementation. > >> >> ... We need to get commitments from these people that they > will do > >> >> this in this period. > >> >> ... Let's begin by making a list of people who will do > >> implementations. > >> >> > >> >> csma: ILOG is working on an implementation. A month ago, we > had a > >> >> first prototype running, so we probably have more going on now. > >> >> > >> >> sandro: I don't know if I'll get one done. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Someone in the XML group at IBM made a RIF-based rule > >> storage > >> >> system. Really a demo of XML X-query technology, but they did > take > >> >> some rules and translated them to RIF, and stored them in RIF- > >> XML, and > >> >> queried them. > >> >> ... question: does that count as a RIF implementation? > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - try > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Mike Dean has an implementation. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store > [recorded > >> in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-904 - Try to dig up XML RIF store [on > >> >> Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> mdean: RIF implementation is in progress. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Silk will be an implementation of BLD. > >> >> > >> >> csma: Gary mentioned he was doing something, but I don't know > the > >> >> status of it now. > >> >> ... will send Gary a message, asking for status. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of > >> >> implementation [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action04] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-905 - Ask Gary about status of > >> >> implementation [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> csma: I think Adrian is working with tibco on an implementation > >> of PRD. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: maybe we should have a RIF Dev mailing list, similar to > >> OWL dev? > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev > >> [recorded > >> >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-906 - Request creation of public-rif- > >> dev [on > >> >> Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Rolf Gruetter has said that his group at WSL needs to > have > >> >> disjunction in rule heads. > >> >> > >> >> Note: Gruetter did not say anything about his group actually > >> >> developing an implementation > >> >> > >> >> csma: OntoBroker has some sort of implementation of BLD > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Alexander Riazanov working on an implementation that > >> converts > >> >> BLD to TPTP. > >> >> > >> >> Harold: He has been on vacation; but I'll try to talk to him > >> about that. > >> >> ... There needs to be some web page on implementation of > OntoBroker > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Or better yet, send in an implementation report, as my > wiki > >> >> page specifies. > >> >> ... Doing that is very quick. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Currently the public information about OntoBroker's > >> >> implementation is inconsistent. ontoprise web page says > there's a > >> RIF > >> >> implementation and links to OntoBroker web page, but > OntoBroker's > >> web > >> >> page says nothing. > >> >> ... What about Tom Gordon. Is he an implementor? > >> >> > >> >> Harold: I don't think he's an implementor. He has a system LKIF, > >> which > >> >> is for legal knowledge. > >> >> ... I don't believe he will implement RIF: he has more of a > >> >> theoretical interest in whether one can represent legal > knowledge > >> >> using RIF. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> Chime > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> Chimezie Ogbuji > >> >> > >> >> Discussion also on Adreas Abecker's comments and Chimezie > Ogbuji's > >> >> comments. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> Nick Bassiliades > >> >> > >> >> Harold: Nick Bassiliades has been following RIF; does defeasible > >> >> rules; unclear as to whether he'll actually do an implementation > >> of RIF. > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> CR dreadline Oct 23rd, friday before the > conferences.... > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: Let's make deadline for implementations October 23, so > >> people > >> >> will be able to announce it before the rules conferences. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: We'll revisit this topic at each telecon. > >> >> > >> >> csma: will restart work on RIF XML soon. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Test Cases > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Axel had made an all built-ins test case > >> >> ... And that test case seems to indeed include /all/ built-ins > >> >> > >> >> Stella: I think it would be better to split it up somehow. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Perhaps by data-type? > >> >> ... There are definitely some typos, like "listeral" instead of > >> >> "literal" > >> >> > >> >> Stella: Perhaps organize it by string predicates, number > >> predicates, > >> >> etc? > >> >> > >> >> <josb> (I wanted to say exactly what Chris just said) > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: what's the problem with it being so big? > >> >> > >> >> Stella: If it fails, it's hard to figure out why. > >> >> ... can we split it by positive guards, negative guards, etc? > >> >> > >> >> Sandro: We can group it by the things people are most likely to > >> >> implement > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase > >> [recorded > >> >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-907 - Refactor All Builtins testcase > [on > >> >> Stella Mitchell - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> Stella: I can refactor the all built-ins case > >> >> ... There are all sorts of issues still to be dealt with, with > >> respect > >> >> to the test cases. > >> >> ... Especially with all the changes in the documents, the > >> >> specifications, etc. > >> >> ... We need more than 15 minutes to go through this. > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> > >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/0026.html > >> >> > >> >> Chris: Let's make this a priority for the next telecon, since > the > >> set > >> >> of test cases will be very important to the implementors. > >> >> ... What do we do with unapproved test cases? Require changes? > Drop > >> >> them? > >> >> ... We do need an Assert/Retract case > >> >> > >> >> csma: We need an Assert /Retract case that is different from a > >> Modify. > >> >> ... I don't have a case in mind, but it probably should be a > >> negative > >> >> case; that you can't assert something about an object that > you've > >> >> retracted. > >> >> ... I had a discussion with Adrian about this. He initially > didn't > >> >> agree; then we had a discussion, including Changhai Ke and Gary, > >> who > >> >> agreed with me. But Adrian has not replied, and therefore > there has > >> >> been no conclusion. > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test > case > >> >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif- > >> minutes.html#action07] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-908 - Fix/update AssertRetract test > >> case [on > >> >> Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> csma: I need to get a consensus on this, and then either > modify the > >> >> test case myself, or get someone to do it. > >> >> ... I think the assert test case is fine. > >> >> ... However, there is no XML for it. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: do we have anything to generate XML for PRD? > >> >> > >> >> csma: Not yet. > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> jacc > >> >> > >> >> Stella: can the XML be generated automatically using a tool like > >> jacc? > >> >> > >> >> Chris: What about the other PRD test cases? Won't this be a > problem > >> >> for all of them? > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD > test > >> >> cases [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08] > >> >> > >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-909 - Check into XML syntax for PRD > test > >> >> cases [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. > >> >> > >> >> Chris: 2 remaining open issues in Working Group: > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the > draft > >> note > >> >> on RIF combination with XML Data > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <csma> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <josb> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <mdean> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the > draft > >> note > >> >> on RIF combination with XML Data > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the > draft > >> note > >> >> on RIF combination with XML Data > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <csma> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <sandro> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <mdean> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <johnhall> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <josb> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the > draft > >> note > >> >> on RIF combination with XML Data > >> >> > >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 > >> >> > >> >> <ChrisW> NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Summary of Action Items > >> >> > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store > [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of > >> implementation > >> >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif- > >> minutes.html#action04] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD > test > >> >> cases [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test > case > >> >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif- > >> minutes.html#action07] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev > >> [recorded > >> >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative > >> appendix > >> >> for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also > work for > >> >> RIF. [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase > >> [recorded > >> >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06] > >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in > >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02] > >> >> > >> >> [End of minutes] > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl > >> >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > > > >> >> version 1.135 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>) > >> >> $Date: 2009/09/01 16:31:33 $ > >> >> > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Scribe.perl diagnostic output > >> >> > >> >> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.] > >> >> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 > 03:52:20 > >> >> Check for newer version at > >> >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ > >> >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/> > >> >> > >> >> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) > >> >> > >> >> Succeeded: s/tipco/tibco/ > >> >> Found Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern > >> >> Inferring ScribeNick: LeoraMorgenstern > >> >> Default Present: Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Sandro, Harold, > >> >> Stella_Mitchell, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, johnhall, csma, > Mike_Dean > >> >> Present: Leora_Morgenstern ChrisW Sandro Harold Stella_Mitchell > >> >> +39.047.101.aaaa josb johnhall csma Mike_Dean > >> >> Regrets: MichaelKifer > >> >> Agenda: > >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html > >> >> Got date from IRC log name: 01 Sep 2009 > >> >> Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html > >> >> People with action items: chris christian sandro stella try > >> >> > >> >> WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. > >> >> You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> [End of scribe.perl > >> >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > > > >> >> diagnostic output] > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Dr. Axel Polleres > >> > Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of > >> Ireland, > >> > Galway > >> > email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D. > >> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Dr. Axel Polleres > > Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of > Ireland, > > Galway > > email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D. > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora > > -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:49:11 UTC