- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:24:01 +0000
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Thank you Jeff for clarifying some individual points. In the clarification I was talking about earlier, it will need to be emphasised that the proposals referred to are those internal to the SchemaBibEx group, and not consensually agreed proposal submissions by the group to the public-vocabs list, of which there have only been two so far. Unfortunately in our context 'proposal' can have more than one meaning. Karen, I am a little taken aback and confused by your hostile act comment. I could not agree with you more that no single organisation [or indeed person] should be allowed to hijack the process for its own purposes. I don't really see how anyone could own a group that operates such as ours to "seek consensus around, and support for, proposal(s) to the W3C WebSchemas Group". I think it is healthy that some such as OCLC and others, Dan for Evergreen for instance, have test implemented data formats based upon what are yet to be agreed proposals in our group - it is the best way to see how they may work in the real world. Exploring possibilities in this way helps clarify and test such proposals, without presumption of acceptance by the group. It is disappointing that, what I believe to be a misunderstanding of motives, is overshadowing what Karen describes as an excellent analysis of the issues. As I say, I believe there should be a comment associated with the report to clarify some of those issues raised here so that we can move on and benefit from that analysis. ~Richard. On 28/06/2013 14:19, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: >> Richard, it isn't subtle at all. Various thoughts are directly >> attributed to the group. It does not "reference" and it never mentions >> that proposals are in dispute. To whit: >> >> Executive summary: >> "explored by OCLC with extensions proposed by the Schema Bib Extend >> project," > >You are repeating flawed arguments. This quote refers to "a model being >explored by OCLC". That model includes "extensions proposed by the Schema >Bib Extend project". This should not be misconstrued as "a model being >proposed by SchemaBibEx". SchemaBibEx is not commissioned to create a >model. It is only commissioned to recommend vocabulary extensions to >Schema.org. > >We all agree the wording should be made clearer here and elsewhere. > >> -- the ONLY proposals are those of Citation and Collection and we took >> back collection at the last meeting. > >Did we take back Collection? (Sorry, if I wasn't paying attention.) I >remember us being dissatisfied with the vote on hasInstance/isInstanceOf, >but I don't think that one ever got submitted to Schema.org. > >> There are NO PROPOSALS from the >> group relating to BIBFRAME!!!! > >I'm sure we all agree this is true and that any wording that implies >otherwise should be edited. > >> section 2 >> >> "This section describes the draft of the new model being developed by >> the SchemaBibEx community. It is mature enough to be used in the next >> refresh of the WorldCat.org linked data markup, which is scheduled for >> public release later in 2013." > >This wording is indeed a problem. As above, the SchemaBibEx community is >not tasked with drafting a model, it is only tasked with proposing >vocabulary extensions to Schema.org. > >The "model" that Jean is referring to is OCLC's, which uses terms from a >variety of vocabularies. The model that Jean is describing was released a >couple months ago in the WorldCat.org Linked Data. When That presumably >hadn't happened yet when Jean wrote this paragraph. > >> There is no draft of a new model from the SchemaBibEx community! > >True. SchemaBibEx will never publish a model because that isn't why it >was formed. > >> In >> fact, on the call on Tuesday, starting at minute 40:00 (following a >> discussion that begins at point 30:00) you say: (and I quote) >> >> "Richard: Ok, let me do a bit of digging, and I'll come back here on >> the mailing list to progress this a little further. We're obviously not >> comfortable, I think is a good phrase, with our proposal as it stands >> at the moment. And let's see if I can get some insight into the way >> they might think it in that group." >> >> This is hardly "mature enough to be used..." > >If I remember correctly, Richard was referring specifically to >dissatisfaction with the isInstance/hasInstanceOf vocabulary terms. It is >those terms that are not "mature enough to be used...". > >> And there are MANY MORE examples like this in the document. > >Then those should be cleaned up. Twisting the meaning of words and taking >facts out of context isn't helpful. > >> This report is not only inaccurate, it appears to be exploiting the >> schemaBibEx group for OCLC's purposes. Unless you can prove me wrong, >> and I do not think you can. I see this as a hostile act against the >> group, and not in the spirit of W3C or schema.org. No single >> organization should be allowed to hijack the process for its own >> purposes. > >This shouldn't be hostile. Why is it hostile? > >Jeff > >> >> kc >> >> >> On 6/28/13 10:34 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >> > Hi Karen, >> > >> > There is a subtle but important difference here. >> > >> > I said that it 'references' the thoughts, discussions, and proposals >> > within the SchemaBibEx group. >> > >> > Which you interpret as 'representing' thoughts and proposals within >> > the SchemaBibEx group. >> > >> > I can assure you that there is not an OCLC corporate view or position >> > on this, other than the general opinion that there is potential in >> > aligning thoughts between SchemaBibEx and BIBFRAME, I think Jeff >> > hinted at this earlier in this thread. I spend far too much time in >> > discussions for that to be true. >> > >> > Jean in producing this report, for BIBFRAME, commenting on and >> > referencing SchemaBibEx, is obviously influenced by her significant >> > experience in bibliographic metadata, and the colleagues around her. >> > However, it is her report to BIBFRAME - not a report on behalf of >> SchemaBibEx. >> > >> > As to bias in the report, as with most reports, it is probably biased >> > towards what the author believes to be a sensible way forward. >> > >> > As I said in my earlier email to you, which you kindly reproduced on >> list: >> > >> > "it is clear that there are different interpretations of the purpose, >> > intent, and approach of the report. I believe that for that reason >> > there is probably a need for clarification of the approach of the >> > report in referencing proposals and discussions within the >> SchemaBibEx group." >> > >> > Subject to schedules at ALA, where I am at the moment, I will work >> > towards that. >> > >> > ~Richard. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 28/06/2013 11:54, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/28/13 9:18 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> As such it does references the thoughts, discussions, and proposals >> >>> within the SchemaBibEx group. I may have missed it in rereading, >> >>> but I didn't see any specific decisions being referenced as such. >> >> >> >> Richard, it does not represent the thoughts and proposals within the >> >> SchemaBibEx group. It represents OCLC's thoughts and proposals, may >> >> of which the group has argued against or simply ignored. You may >> have >> >> assumed that OCLC's proposals were = the group's proposals, but that >> >> is not the case. For example, OCLC has stated that it advocates the >> >> use of the productontology. No one else has taken that up as a >> >> positive proposal. Therefore, one person (or organization) making a >> >> suggestion is NOT the same as it being a proposal of the group. You >> >> have confused OCLC's view with that of the group. Anyone can say >> >> anything during the calls, but these do not become the "thoughts" of >> >> the group. I actually spoke out against productontology [1] -- is >> that a thought of the group? >> >> (It definitely isn't mentioned in the report, since only OCLC's view >> >> seems to appear there.) >> >> >> >> Richard, the report is biased to support what OCLC wants, and >> ignores >> >> that actual interactions and discussions of the group. You may have >> >> been hearing the discussion through OCLC glasses, but if you go back >> >> to the emails you will see that what is said in the report as the >> >> thoughts of the group is not true -- it is the thoughts of OCLC, >> >> ignoring what group members have said. >> >> >> >> kc >> >> >> >> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- >> schemabibex/2013Feb/001 >> >> 4.htm >> >> l >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Yes it is obviously an OCLC Report, which expresses Jean's (with >> >>> some cooperation from colleagues) view, of SchemaBibEx group's >> >>> efforts and proposals, referencing and exploring some of the >> >>> examples in our open public discussions. As such I don't see it >> >>> claiming to represent any 'decisions' of the SchemaBibEx group. >> >>> >> >>> From the discussions on our list it is clear that there are >> >>> different interpretations of the purpose, intent, and approach of >> >>> the report. I believe that for that reason there is probably a >> need >> >>> for clarification of the approach of the report in referencing >> >>> proposals and discussions within the SchemaBibEx group. >> >>> Specifically that all references to SchemaBibEx proposals are in >> >>> fact just that - 'proposals' under discussion. And for clarity are >> >>> not proposals by SchemaBibEx to the Public-vocabs list following >> >>> decisions by the group. >> >>> >> >>> I intend to catch up with Jean in the near future, subject to us >> >>> both being in different parts of the same enormous conference >> >>> centre, to discuss how this would be achieved. >> >>> >> >>> ~Richard. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 28/06/2013 10:26, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Richard, Jean's report is an excellent analysis of the issues. But >> >>>> it attributes to the schema BibEx group thoughts and decisions >> that >> >>>> are not ours but OCLC's. The entire report should be a report on >> >>>> OCLC's thinking on the topic, and should not attribute that >> >>>> thinking to the group. That attribution is nothing less than >> false. >> >>>> (Jean may not have known this.) By attributing the thinking in the >> >>>> report to the group, OCLC is claiming a community consensus on its >> >>>> ideas that has not been demonstrated. >> >>>> >> >>>> What the report says about the Schema BibEx group is not true. >> This >> >>>> must be rectified. >> >>>> >> >>>> kc >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri Jun 28 07:16:18 2013, Wallis,Richard wrote: >> >>>>> Hi All, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Let me clarify a few things from my point of view. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Firstly an apology for not posting the document on list as soon >> as >> >>>>> it could have been. I was aware that the publication this report >> >>>>> to the BIBFRAME community was imminent from Jean Godby, but the >> >>>>> actual timing, with dependancies on when the document could be >> >>>>> loaded on the web etc., was not known. Flight schedules and >> >>>>> airport wifi conspired to prevent me from monitoring the BIBFRAME >> >>>>> list closely enough to be able to repost it on this list as soon >> >>>>> as I would have liked. Again I thank Karen, and her observant >> >>>>> following of these lists, for doing my job for me. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Secondly, I believe that we should take note of what prompted the >> >>>>> report and therefore its context. To quote Jean '/The analysis >> >>>>> presented here was prompted by the call at the end of the >> December >> >>>>> 2012 BIBFRAME Early Experimenters Meeting for a set of Point or >> >>>>> Position papers that work out technical issues and make >> >>>>> recommendations for a number of sketchy, difficult, or >> >>>>> controversial aspects of the //BIBFRAME model./' and '/This draft >> >>>>> is being released as an OCLC report, but it is intended to be >> read >> >>>>> as a working paper for the BIBFRAME community./' >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Jean in producing this report to the BIBFRAME community listened >> >>>>> to the published SchemaBibEx discussions, read our public email >> >>>>> conversations, and the documentation on the wiki over several >> months. >> >>>>> Having reread her document I am not aware of any topic she >> >>>>> attributes to SchemaBibEx discussions that has not at sometime >> >>>>> been discussed in the group. In the refining of her thinking >> Jean >> >>>>> interviewed some of her colleagues, particularly Jeff Young and >> >>>>> myself who are involved in Schema.org. We were also able to >> >>>>> comment with others who are interested in the importance of >> linked >> >>>>> data for the library domain, on early drafts. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Next I should address my personal position, as an OCLC employee, >> >>>>> in this. Personally I believe that the issues, challenges, and >> >>>>> opportunities being discussed in groups such as SchemaBibEx and >> >>>>> BIBFRAME of vital importance to the library, bibliographic, web >> >>>>> and semantic web communities. That importance is way larger than >> >>>>> any individual organisation, be they commercial, cooperative, >> >>>>> individual or government backed. I am fortunate enough to be able >> >>>>> to provide some hopefully unbiased facilitation in these areas & >> >>>>> communities and the backing of my employer to invest the time >> (and >> >>>>> some of their >> >>>>> resources) in doing this. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> OCLC I believe has two important roles in these debates. Firstly >> >>>>> as a cooperative representing tens of thousands of member >> >>>>> libraries, and secondly they research and manage on a day to day >> >>>>> basis a huge aggregation of bibliographic data. The significant >> >>>>> experience gained into the transformation, analysis, and >> >>>>> processing of this data give them unique insight in to the issues >> and challenges that arise. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Back to the report itself. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am not going to go into a point by point discussion here, but >> >>>>> taken in the round I believe its description of the general >> >>>>> direction of travel of our discussions on how Schema.org could be >> >>>>> applied to and influence the description of bibliographic data is >> not far off. >> >>>>> Especially in support of the conclusion that the BIBFRAME >> >>>>> community [to whom the report is targeted] should look to take >> >>>>> note of our work and consider cooperation with. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As commentator on our activities I believe that Jean possibly >> >>>>> over emphasises the goal of representing FRBR in Schema.org >> >>>>> (something she states would not be acceptable by Schema) - I >> think >> >>>>> it is her interpretation of our challenge to use Schema to >> >>>>> describe resources and their relationships – relationships we >> >>>>> [library folk] understand and often discuss in terms of FRBR. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Again in general, I believe that her report will be an excellent >> >>>>> addition to the debate in the BIBFRAME community and hopefully >> >>>>> broaden the debate around the use of library linked data, and >> most >> >>>>> importantly its place in the broader web of data. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ~Richard. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com >> >>>>> <mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>> >> >>>>> Date: Friday, 28 June 2013 05:10 >> >>>>> To: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com <mailto:denials@gmail.com>> >> >>>>> Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public- >> schemabibex@w3.org>" >> >>>>> <public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org >> >>>>> Resent-From: <public-schemabibex@w3.org >> >>>>> <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>> >> >>>>> Resent-Date: Friday, 28 June 2013 05:11 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> +1 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> Shlomo >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com >> >>>>> <mailto:denials@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks Karen. I generally concur with your reaction >> (although I >> >>>>>> have to admit that for the first time in my life I was >> getting >> >>>>>> hung up on the _terrible_ kerning of the font in the PDF, >> so had >> >>>>>> been reading through it rather slowly). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I was surprised by many of the statements in the paper >> about the >> >>>>>> direction, decisions, thoughts, and beliefs of the Schema >> BibEx >> >>>>>> group. Perhaps if all (or most) of those statements were >> >>>>>> modified >> >>>>>> to say they were the direction, decisions, thoughts, >> beliefs "of >> >>>>>> the OCLC employees currently participating in the Schema >> BibEx >> >>>>>> community" that would be more acceptable--certainly closer >> >>>>>> to the >> >>>>>> truth. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I very much value the opinions (& Richard's leadership) of >> the >> >>>>>> OCLC participants in this group, but cannot endorse this >> >>>>>> paper as >> >>>>>> an accurate reflection of the group's positions, >> direction, etc >> >>>>>> as a whole, particularly with respect to BIBFRAME. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Karen Coyle >> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> >>>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Richard, now that I've gotten further along in reading >> this, >> >>>>>> I think that "posting it to the list" is the least >> that you >> >>>>>> should have done. This document, written by OCLC and >> not >> >>>>>> vetted by this list, attributes to the schema bibex >> group a >> >>>>>> number of decisions and thoughts that I do not >> recognize. It >> >>>>>> uses "we" to mean not OCLC but the bibex group. I find >> this >> >>>>>> more than just problematic - this is at least arrogant >> and >> >>>>>> possibly dishonest. I now find decisions attributed to >> this >> >>>>>> group that I cannot condone, yet as a member of the >> >>>>>> group one >> >>>>>> could infer that they are mine as well. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> OCLC cannot speak for this group, and it definitely >> cannot >> >>>>>> speak for this group in a document that this group did >> not >> >>>>>> even see. Godby stated that this would be presented at >> the >> >>>>>> BIBFRAME session at ALA. If it is presented as the >> thoughts >> >>>>>> of the bibex group and not OCLC, you should be >> ashamed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Here are just a few examples from the document: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "This shift in focus implies a decision by the >> SchemaBibEx >> >>>>>> community to defer to the important standards >> initiatives of >> >>>>>> the library community, including BIBFRAME, to develop >> >>>>>> vocabulary required for detailed descriptions of >> library >> >>>>>> resources." p. 11 - I do not think we have discussed >> this at >> >>>>>> all. In fact, we haven't really discussed the >> >>>>>> relationship of >> >>>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org> and BIBFRAME in any >> detail, >> >>>>>> and I'm not sure it is necessarily appropriate for us >> to do >> >>>>>> so in this forum. There may be some folks on the group >> who >> >>>>>> aren't even paying attention to BIBFRAME, but who wish >> to >> >>>>>> mark up bibliographic displays unrelated to libraries. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Though the BIBFRAME initiative needs to develop its >> own >> >>>>>> policy with regard to the Product Types Ontology, the >> >>>>>> SchemaBibEx community sees little need to define and >> >>>>>> maintain >> >>>>>> a competing vocabulary for content types and >> carriers." p. >> >>>>>> 17 >> >>>>>> - Again, a decision that I do not recall. Also, AFAIK, >> >>>>>> no one >> >>>>>> except Jeff has promoted the use of the product types >> >>>>>> ontology, and we haven't discussed its use in any >> detail in >> >>>>>> the group. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "The SchemaBIBEx community is exploring the possiblity >> that >> >>>>>> schema:IndividualProduct ... corresponds reasonably >> well to >> >>>>>> the definition of FRBR Item." p. 17 - We haven't >> really >> >>>>>> touched on the item level yet. This is one idea, but >> it is >> >>>>>> premature to attribute this thinking to the group. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "To move forward, two issues must be resolved. First, >> >>>>>> we must >> >>>>>> reach agreement on working definitions of key >> concepts. Then >> >>>>>> we must solve the technical problem of mismatched >> >>>>>> expectations about domain and range values..." p. 18 - >> I >> >>>>>> object to the use of "we" here because it is talking >> about >> >>>>>> the work of the SchemaBibEx group, not OCLC. This >> implies >> >>>>>> that the document is coming from the bibex group, not >> OCLC. >> >>>>>> That is not true. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sorry for the blunt talk, but this document must be >> >>>>>> re-written to reflect that it is the thoughts and >> >>>>>> opinions of >> >>>>>> OCLC, not the bibex group. And that absolutely must be >> made >> >>>>>> clear at ALA. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> kc >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu Jun 27 10:41:15 2013, Wallis,Richard wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks Karen for posting this to the list. >> Travelling >> >>>>>> got in the way of >> >>>>>> me ensuring that it was published here and on the >> >>>>>> BIBFRAME list at about >> >>>>>> the same time. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ~Richard. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 27/06/2013 11:59, "Karen Coyle" >> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> >>>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> All, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If you are on the BIBFRAME list you will have >> seen a >> >>>>>> message from Jean >> >>>>>> Godby with a link to her paper: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Godby, Carol Jean. 2013. The Relationship >> between >> >>>>>> BIBFRAME and the >> >>>>>> Schema.org <http://Schema.org> ŒBib >> Extensions¹ >> >>>>>> Model: A Working Paper. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC >> >>>>>> Research. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> http://www.oclc.org/content/__dam/research/publications/__library >> >>>>>> /2013 >> >>>>>> /2 >> >>>>>> 013-05 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> <http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/20 >> >>>>>> 13/20 >> >>>>>> 13 >> >>>>>> -05> >> >>>>>> ..pdf. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> This 41 page(!) paper is an excellent analysis >> >>>>>> of the >> >>>>>> possible >> >>>>>> relationship between BIBFRAME and schema.org >> >>>>>> <http://schema.org>. This is a topic which we >> >>>>>> have not discussed directly in this group, and >> I >> >>>>>> would like to propose >> >>>>>> that we could merge this discussion with our >> >>>>>> consideration of >> >>>>>> "instanceOf" and "has Instance" -- which we >> decided >> >>>>>> to push to this list >> >>>>>> at the end of our last webex meeting on >> >>>>>> Tuesday, June 25. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The paper presents the alignment of schema.org >> >>>>>> <http://schema.org> and FRBR as a primary >> >>>>>> goal of this group [1]. I take exception to >> that, as >> >>>>>> may others. But I >> >>>>>> believe that the underlying question is the >> >>>>>> coordination of BIBFRAME and >> >>>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org>, and that >> should be >> >>>>>> discussed first. There are obvious >> >>>>>> benefits to the library community to bringing >> these >> >>>>>> two into alignment, >> >>>>>> but we should also discuss whether we can do >> so >> >>>>>> without silo-ing library >> >>>>>> data once again. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> kc >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [1] "The main objective of the redesign is to >> >>>>>> improve >> >>>>>> the representation >> >>>>>> of the FRBR hierarchy using concepts already >> defined >> >>>>>> in Schema.org <http://Schema.org>. >> >>>>>> Since the application of the FRBR hierarchy >> requires >> >>>>>> the association of >> >>>>>> descriptions with differing degrees of >> abstraction, >> >>>>>> the schemaBibEx >> >>>>>> community has also proposed the properties >> >>>>>> hasInstance and isInstanceOf, >> >>>>>> whose semantics resemble the BIBFRAME >> >>>>>> properties with >> >>>>>> the same names." >> >>>>>> (Godby, p. 11) >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Karen Coyle >> >>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> >>>>>> http://kcoyle.net >> >>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> >>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> >>>>>> skype: kcoylenet >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Karen Coyle >> >>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> >>>>>> http://kcoyle.net >> >>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> >>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> >>>>>> skype: kcoylenet >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Karen Coyle >> >>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> >>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> >>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> >>>> skype: kcoylenet >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Karen Coyle >> >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 20:24:38 UTC