- From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:07:53 +0200
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- CC: Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Message-ID: <5628C389.4070104@jacobs-university.de>
thanks, Frans, appreciated! -Peter On 2015-10-22 11:29, Frans Knibbe wrote: > Peter, thank you for the friendly amendment. I think we are about ready to > vote on the proposal in a next meeting. Therefore I have just changed the > status of ISSUE-27 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/27> to > 'pending review', and added a note which can be copied to the IRC when the > time comes. > > Regards, > Frans > > 2015-10-22 10:12 GMT+02:00 Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>>: > > > > On 2015-10-22 00:23, Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto: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 <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> >> *Cc:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> >> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> >> <mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) >> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Ed Parsons >> <eparsons@google.com> <mailto:eparsons@google.com>; Peter Baumann >> <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> <mailto: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 <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 <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 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 11:08:53 UTC