- From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:12:43 +0200
- To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- CC: <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>, <eparsons@google.com>
- Message-ID: <56289A7B.6070607@jacobs-university.de>
On 2015-10-22 00:23, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > > Ø /“The OGC is currently working on refinements and extensions of ISO 19123, > which could result in specifications that allow a higher level of > interoperability of implementations. Where appropriate, the Working Group will > also consider these forthcoming standards.”/ > > > > That looks OK to me. I certainly had concerns about the reach of claims in the > longer proposal. > No work is known to me that plans on extensions to ISO 19123 (for good reason, that would certainly not help interoperability per se). On the 2nd sentence, I had the feeling that we are already further. Effectively, it has 2 "softeners": "Where appropriate" - what are the criteria? We loose discussion already done. Note that "consider" (2nd one) does not make any assumptions about a decision either. The standard under discussion is the OGC Coverage Implementation Schema (and v1.0 is not forthcoming, but existing since many years, and implemented by many), so not state it. Hence, my friendly amendment: /“The OGC is currently working on refinements of ISO 19123 (in particular, the OGC Coverage Implementation Schema 1.1), which could result in specifications that allow a higher level of interoperability of implementations. The Working Group will also consider these forthcoming standards.”/ > > > Ø “/The term *coverage* is used to describe a feature whose properties vary > with space and / or time; for example, the variation of air temperature within > a given geographic region, or the variation of flow rate with time at a > hydrological monitoring station./” > > Might also add “or the variation of colour within a scene or image” which is > an example that would be familiar to an even wider community. > this looks fine to me. best, Peter > > > Simon > > > > *From:*Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Thursday, 22 October 2015 2:34 AM > *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org > *Cc:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Jon Blower > <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Ed > Parsons <eparsons@google.com>; Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > *Subject:* Re: Issue 27: correction of the description of the Coverage in > Linked Data deliverable > > > > Thanks everyone for the good discussion so far. Good points were made that > should be useful when work on the coverage deliverable (the solution phase) > gets underway. > > > > Let's try to get back to the topic of ISSUE-27: how could we add a note to the > description of the coverage deliverable in the UCR document, to make sure that > we have the right foundations for work on the deliverable? > > > > So far Peter had made a proposal for a note that could be added to the > deliverable description (see the second messsage in this thread): > > > > /"ISO 19123 defines an abstract coverage model whose implementations are not > guaranteed to be interoperable (actually, various implementations expressly > based on ISO 19213 exist which in fact are not interoperable, as has been > shown by OGC surveys). OGC's Coverage Implementation Schema (CIS, formerly GML > 3.2.1 Application Schema - Coverages, GMLCOV) is interoperable indeed, and > maps to standard formats, such as GML, GeoTIFF, and NetCDF. CIS 1.1 is planned > by ISO TC211 to become ISO 19123-2, as the concrete counterpart to abstract > 19123, which will be renamed to 19123-1 (resolved by TC211 WG 6 in June 2015). > Therefore, the coverage schema adopted by SWD WG should be compatible with > forthcoming ISO 19123-2 aka OGC CIS 1.1." / > > > > There was some criticism on parts of this proposal. Like Ed suggested, I > wonder if we could lessen the grounds for disagreement on details by having > less specifics in the note. That would have the added benefit of making the > note easier to understand (for people that are not coverage experts). How > about something like this? > > > > /“The OGC is currently working on refinements and extensions of ISO 19123, > which could result in specifications that allow a higher level of > interoperability of implementations. Where appropriate, the Working Group will > also consider these forthcoming standards.”/ > > > > Would a note like this give enough room not to limit ourselves to ISO 19123? > And is it something everyone can live with? > > > > Another thing: I would like to note that outside of the description of the > deliverable the charter contains a definition of coverage: > > “/The term *coverage* is used to describe a feature whose properties vary > with space and / or time; for example, the variation of air temperature within > a given geographic region, or the variation of flow rate with time at a > hydrological monitoring station./” > > Is that definition acceptable for everyone? I wondered about that because the > discussion also was about the definition of the term 'coverage'. > > > > Regards, > > Frans > > > > 2015-10-16 13:10 GMT+02:00 Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>>: > > +1, good point made. > -Peter > > > > On 2015-10-16 11:27, Jeremy Tandy wrote: > > Jon, Peter ... > > > > on the subject of RDF Data Cubes ... I think that datasets that are > predictably structured can be represented as an RDF Data Cube; albeit > that the dimensions of that cube might not relate to geometric or > temporal axes. > > > > Looking at the trajectory 'coverage' as an example ... > > > > - the trajectory (let's call it the sampling feature) is a linear > feature through four dimensional space > > - let's say we record the variation of 5 physical properties along > that sampling feature > > > > ... it's a coverage because we're interested in the variation of those > properties along the sampling feature > > > > The RDF DataCube can be used to describe the resulting set of values. > The domain (a 1-dimensional object) is a dimension of the datacube. > > > > I'll agree that the RDF Data Cube is not always going to be the > optimal way to present this information - but it still has its place. > > > > Jeremy > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 at 14:35 Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk > <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Great, sorry if I was being a pain, but I think we’re in good > agreement here, which is great. Hopefully others on this list > found the discussion helpful and not too noisy! ;-) > > > > Still, we have more questions than answers, but that’s OK... > > > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > > > On 14 Oct 2015, at 18:44, Peter Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > On 2015-10-14 12:23, Jon Blower wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Is an irregular polygonal mesh a “grid”? How about a > trajectory (e.g. ship track)? I would not say so, but > others might use terminology differently. > > > sorry if I made this impression - no, an irregular mesh still > is a mesh. I was talking about irregular grids where, in > Testbed 11, we spotted several cases. An irregular grid is > characterized by individual (geometric) distances between the > grid points while the underlying topology still remains a > grid, ie: every grid point has its well defined neighbours. > > > > > Anyway, I’m not trying to pick nits for the sake of it, > I’m trying to point out that the coverage world is quite > broad. We probably need to work out which bits of this > world are most relevant to this group, as I don’t think we > know yet. > > > Indeed, and I am very willing to describe "coverage world" in > detail so that the group can determine which subset is of > relevance. > > > > > Personally I don’t think we should be equating coverages > with datacubes (of the RDF variety or otherwise) - the > reality is more complicated than this. > > > absolutely so. Datacubes (whether mapped to relations like in > ROLAP or to RDF etc) are one particular direction, and point > clouds, meshes, etc are completely different stuff. > > > > > I think the definition of a coverage is quite simple - > it’s a function that maps points in space and time to data > values. (The ISO19123 definition is a bit longer I think > but not fundamentally different.) > > > > Grids are one way of enabling this mapping, but there are > many other ways too. > > > an excellent summary indeed! > > -Peter > > > > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > > > On 13 Oct 2015, at 10:09, Peter Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> wrote: > > > > On 2015-10-13 08:54, Jon Blower wrote: > > well, a coverage is a datacube whose axes can > be spatial and/or temporal. > > > > This is only true for certain types of coverages. > Many others (curvilinear grids, irregular meshes, > polygon-based coverages) don’t fit this definition. > > > you are right, Jon, in that coverages are wider area. > Just irregular grids are still grids, hence in > datacube world. > I thought I focus for simplicity and blank out what's > not in scope here, but you caught me ;-) > > -Peter > > > > > But I agree with your wider point that we need to > step back and consider what our requirements are. > I’ve examined QB in a previous project and am > dubious that it has much practical utility for > this kind of thing, but that’s only my view from a > certain standpoint. We need to define what exactly > we want to be able to do. > > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > On 12 Oct 2015, at 21:41, Peter Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> wrote: > > > > well, a coverage is a datacube whose axes can > be spatial and/or temporal. It might be > interesting to relate RDF cubes and coverages. > But again, what do we want to incorporate > actually? > -Peter > > On 2015-10-12 01:36, Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > I would think that QB[1] (which is derived > from SDMX) would have something to > contribute here. It is an RDF vocabulary > that describes the structure of a > datacube, and this provides specific > RDF-oriented queries into cells, slices, > dimensions of gridded data. Geospatial > coverages have the additional feature that > one or more of the dimensions is > spatio-temporal. > > > > My view is that there should be no > expectation that whole datasets would have > to be transformed and stored following QB, > but that subsets can be uniquely > identified using QB-bases queries, which > would then be transformed into the native > query (WCS, SOS, OPeNDAP) and passed on to > the hosting service). > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ > > > > *From:*Peter Baumann > [mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de] > *Sent:* Monday, 12 October 2015 8:29 AM > *To:* Jon Blower > <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> > <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> > *Cc:* Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> > <mailto:eparsons@google.com>; Cox, Simon > (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; > frans.knibbe@geodan.nl > <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Issue 27: correction of the > description of the Coverage in Linked Data > deliverable > > > > Hi Jon, > > exciting questions indeed, you are > absolutely right: large portions of the > overall issue are independent from "to > coverage or not to coverage" (sorry for > bending language). > What I find particularly interesting is > this transition from general data linking > into referencing the internals of an > object. A coverage is just one particular > case, so solving this might open up vistas > for other links - into graphs, into > documents (I mean: more than just HTML > anchors), etc. This is one reason why I am > curiously following progress in this group. > > Nite, > Peter > > On 2015-10-11 21:06, Jon Blower wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > I’m not suggesting redefining > “coverage”, I’m suggesting that there > are interesting questions around the > use of coverages in the Linked Data > world that aren’t concerned with > ISO19123, for example: > > > > 1. Identifying coverages (hence being > able to link to them). > > 2. Behaviour of web services that > serve coverages (e.g. how can we > improve WCS, OPeNDAP, NcSS etc to play > more nicely with the wider web?). > > 3. Linking between data catalogues and > coverage services (e.g. linking > between GeoDCAT descriptions and > concrete data access services) > > > > None of these are within scope for > ISO19123, but I believe are > interesting problems that this group > could help with (and are on my mind at > the moment because we need solutions > for the MELODIES project). > > > > The question of linking *into* > coverages (i.e. identifying coverage > subsets) probably does involve stuff > like ISO19123(-2), because for that we > do need some common understanding of > what a coverage data structure looks like. > > > > By leaping immediately into the > ISO19123 world we restrict ourselves > unnecessarily to the problem of > modelling and encoding coverages, > which is certainly relevant but not > the only problem that’s pertinent to > Linked Data (particularly since there > are many other groups covering* some > of this). > > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > * no pun intended > > > > > > On 11 Oct 2015, at 19:29, Peter > Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> > wrote: > > > > Hi Jon- > > several case studies for a range > of different areas have been > conducted, here a theoretical [1] > and an applied one [2] - these are > just a few, of course, others have > worked on this, too. It is just > that the term "coverage" has a > particular definition, so we > cannot redefine at will if > interoperability is among the > goals. A clear scientific > treatment of terms seems > important. Hence, for scientific > groundwork I'd suggest to use a > neutral term, maybe "pictures" or > anything else that appears > meaningful and not yet taken. > > cheers, > Peter > > [1] Angelica Garcia, Peter > Baumann: /Modeling Fundamental > Geo-Raster Operations with Array > Algebra/. IEEE international > workshop in spatial and > spatio-temporal data mining, > October 28-31 2007, Omaha, USA > [2] Peter Baumann, Maximilian > Höfner, Walter Schatz: /Querying > Large Geo Image Databases: A Case > Study/. IV Brazilian Symposium on > GeoInformatics - GeoInfo 2002, > December 5-6 2002, Caxambu, Brazil > > (BTW, similar studies have been > done for astro and life sciences, too) > > On 2015-10-10 20:31, Jon Blower wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I’m relatively new to this > group so I don’t know all the > history behind the wording of > the Charter but I have always > found this particular > requirement to be prematurely > specific. Personally I would > be more comfortable with a > requirement along the lines of > (in imprecise language), “We > know that a lot of coverage > data are being published and > such data pose challenges for > Linked Data approaches. This > group will develop > recommendations for making > best use of coverage data in a > Linked Data environment.” > > > > From this high-level > requirement we need to develop > specific use cases that > identify real gaps in the > ecosystem and work out what we > can actually do to fill them, > within the scope of this group > (and what we defer to other > groups). I don’t think I’ve > seen this level of analysis so > far (apologies if I’ve missed > something) but I’d be keen to > participate in such an activity. > > > > Personally I don’t see a need > to mention ISO19123, WaterML2, > NetCDF or any other specific > standard at the level of this > requirement, except perhaps to > give examples of what a > coverage is. The following > sentence in the Charter does a > good job of highlighting that > we will look at prior art: > > > > "Where deliverables build on > prior work, any variance > developed by the Spatial Data > on the Web WG will be > backwards compatible with the > existing work. The aim is to > formalize existing work, not > to replace or compete with it.” > > > > Just my 0.013p (at current > exchange rates). > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Oct 2015, at 18:44, > Ed Parsons > <eparsons@google.com > <mailto:eparsons@google.com>> > wrote: > > > > So would a better approach > be to have less > specificity in the > requirement? > > Ed > > > > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, > 11:41 Peter Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>> > wrote: > > yes, indeed ISO will > take its time. Once > there, ISO CIS will > stay for many years as > ISO's understanding of > coverages. > It will be a core > decision for the SDW > WG whether to bypass > ISO and INSPIRE and > establish a silo > solution, or be > compatible with the > mainstream. > > > > -Peter > > > > On 2015-10-10 08:13, > Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > wrote: > > Ø ISO-19123-2 > (the soon to be > published ISO > version of the OGC > Coverage > Implementation > Schema 1.1)? > > > > ‘soon to be > published’ is > optimistic. > > It is not yet on > the ISO/TC 211 > program of work [1]. > > The duration from > NWIP (New Work > Item Proposal) to > IS (International > Standard) is never > less than 3 years, > even if there is a > mature starting > document. > > > > [1] > http://www.isotc211.org/pow.htm > > > > > *From:*Frans > Knibbe > [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > > *Sent:* Friday, 9 > October 2015 11:28 PM > *To:* SDW WG > Public List > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; > Peter Baumann > <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > *Subject:* Issue > 27: correction of > the description of > the Coverage in > Linked Data > deliverable > > > > Issue 27 > <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27> > is a special one, > because it is > about one of the > deliverables. The > Coverage in Linked > Data deliverable > <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#cov> reads > "The WG will > develop a formal > Recommendation for > expressing > discrete coverage > data conformant to > the ISO 19123 > abstract model. ..." > > > > Peter explained > that this > statement probably > requires some > adjustment, see > this message > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Apr/0024.html>, > otherwise the > deliverable will > not have the > proper foundation. > > > > Do I understand > correctly that is > is a matter of > saying that the > Recommendation > will not be based > on ISO-19123, but > on ISO-19123-2 > (the soon to be > published ISO > version of the OGC > Coverage > Implementation > Schema 1.1)? > > > > We can not change > the charter text, > but we could add a > clarification (a > note) in the > chapter about > deliverables in > the UCR document > (Ed, Kerry or > Phil: is that > correct?). > > > > If the assumption > above are correct, > could someone > suggest a good > wording for the > note that should > be added? > > > > Regards, > > Frans > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > -- > > *Ed Parsons* > Geospatial Technologist, > Google > > Google Voice +44 (0)20 > 7881 4501 > www.edparsons.com > <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Baumann > > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 > > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 08:13:39 UTC