W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:08:01 +0100
Message-ID: <494664C1.30906@few.vu.nl>
To: Johan De Smedt <Johan.De-smedt@tenforce.com>
CC: Alasdair J G Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "Tudhope D S (AT)" <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>, "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "Binding C (AT)" <cbinding@glam.ac.uk>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hello everyone,

I'm coming back to this issue, as I took the following action on me:

>    [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE 160 [recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14]

I have come with two paragraphs at the end of this mail, to add at the end of the section on Collections in the SKOS Primer [1]. I hope that they capture the main lessons that can be learnt from this very interesting discussion. Feedback is more than welcome!

Note that I would prefer not to mention explicitly Johan and Leonard's solutions, as I feel they would add much detailed for the Primer, and maybe also too much BS-8723 oriented. But it's clear they'd be welcome to appear as best practice notes somewhere...



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#seccollections

======== beginning of added paragraphs

One may wonder whether using collections is desirable, as they add complexity to the representations applications have to manipulate. In fact, for some cases, e.g. when KOS are mainly intended as navigation hierarchies, it seems more intuitive to represent "node labels" or "guide terms" as instance of skos:Concept, and to use normal semantic relationships for linking them to other concepts. Take the following variant of the "milk" example:

ex3:milkBySourceAnimal rdf:type skos:Concept;
   skos:prefLabel "milk by source animal"@en;
   skos:broader ex3:milk;
   skos:narrower ex3:cowMilk;
   skos:narrower ex3:goatMilk;
   skos:narrower ex3:buffaloMilk.

The choice between the two representation options remains open, depending on the application at hand. Readers should however be aware that not using collections, even if more intuitive, may result in a harmful loss of semantic accuracy. For many description applications, for instance, "node labels" are entities of really specific nature, and must not be used as object indices alongside "normal" concepts. Representing them as mere concepts is therefore clearly not a best practice.

======== end of added paragraphs

> Dear,
> Please find below a way I made a mapping, inspired by the BSI definitions and the skos 2008 artifacts.
> I made an extension to skos
> - defining a subclass (array) of collection
>   subclassed in order to add semantics to specic type of collections
> - defining a new property superOrdinate
>   domain:array; range array or concept
> - due to the intended semantics of array,
>   declare an inference rule such that all concepts of an array
>   - either all are top concepts
>   - or all such concepts have a common broader term
> kr, Johan De Smedt.
> ===================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alasdair J G Gray
> Sent: Thursday, 04 December, 2008 17:38
> To: Antoine Isaac
> Cc: Alistair Miles; Tudhope D S (AT); public-swd-wg@w3.org; Binding C (AT); public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships
> Hi,
> We have also encountered this problem when converting existing
> astronomy vocabularies to SKOS.
> We initially went with option one (converting all nodes to
> skos:Concepts and declaring the broader/narrower relationships).
> However, we quickly found that this was not appropriate as the nodes
> that are there as labels were then available for use as concepts.
> The final version of the skos vocabularies has used option two
> (converting the label nodes to skos:Collections and doing more
> processing to discover the appropriate broader/narrower
> relationships). We have found this to be a more natural modelling of
> the desired behaviour even if it was not our initial modelling option.
> It would be interesting to know if the majority of people who have
> encountered this have ended up using option 1 or option 2. If the
> majority end up using option 2 then I would strongly argue for a "best
> practice" recommendation for this as it is not the first modelling
> option that comes to mind.
> Regards,
> Alasdair
> On 4 Dec 2008, at 15:04, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think we are almost in agreement, in fact, just playing on
>> details. But if such things have to make their way in the Primer I'd
>> prefer to be sure of a consensus first, if this can be obtained :-)
>> We have two possible mapping/"transformation" to SKOS
>> 1. the one I would call "natural", stick to the structure presented
>> in the visualization and electronic representation and documentation
>> althogether. In AAT (and here I disagree with Alistair) the only
>> structural link you have in an *explicit* manner is the broader/
>> narrower links between monoplanes and <aeroplanes by wing number>.
>> Again, I call this transformation most natural because it's really
>> the closest to the structure explicitly given in the KOS. The
>> alternative requires indeed more process wrt. structure, both when
>> creating SKOS data from the original format, and creating a display
>> from the SKOS data.
>> 2. the one which uses skos:Collection, which I would tend to find
>> also "conceptually cleaner", because it relates by semantic
>> relationships only things which have the same semantic nature.
>> I actually really don't know if one of these two solutions can be
>> labelled as "best practice". They clearly focus on different points,
>> and I think the choice should be the entire responsability of the
>> KOS provider, being best informed about the primary application
>> context of the KOS at hand, and therefore the relative usefuless of
>> both options.
>> Cheers,
>> Antoine
>>> Hi Doug,
>>> Here are some further thoughts...
>>> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:10:41PM -0000, Tudhope D S (AT) wrote:
>>>> Hi Al
>>>> Thanks for getting back.
>>>> I agree with your points below as representing best practice
>>>> However we still have some concerns surrounding SKOS collections
>>>> which I think is useful to discuss as longer term issues.
>>>> 1. Our main concern is facilitating SKOS representations for
>>>> legacy vocabularies which already have electronic representations
>>>> (or possibly where 'skosification' is a significant challenge for
>>>> the vocabulary provider).
>>>> I am guessing that many existing electronic representations will
>>>> follow your second aeroplane thesaurus example format. Examples
>>>> include the various MDA and cultural heritage thesauri we have
>>>> worked with (see our report on SKOS conversion http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2008-07-05/Additional-report-wp5.pdf
>>>>  <http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2008-07-05/Additional-report-wp5.pdf
>>>>> ) and the current AAT XML sample data available online
>>>> (http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/download.html
>>>>  <http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/download.html
>>>>> ) also exhibits the second aeroplane example structure. There is
>>>> a 'record type' attribute that can be one of 4 possible values:
>>>> Concept, Facet, GuideTerm, HierarchyName. Something flagged as a
>>>> 'Concept' can have a parent that is marked as a 'GuideTerm', and
>>>> the two are linked via a 'Parent/child' relationship.
>>> I still don't see how the existing electronic representation can be
>>> said to "follow" or "exhibit" the structure in the second aeroplane
>>> thesaurus in SKOS example.
>>> Take the AAT sample data, for example.
>>> You quite nicely describe the metamodel underlying the AAT data,
>>> where
>>> the data is structured as Records of one of four types (Concept,
>>> Facet, GuideTerm, HierarchyName), and where parent/child
>>> relationships
>>> can exist between Records of any type.
>>> You are still left with an open choice about how to define a
>>> transformation which will map this metamodel onto the SKOS data
>>> model.
>>> For example, your transformation could be as follows: for each AAT
>>> Record, generate an instance of skos:Concept, regardless of the type
>>> of the Record; for each parent/child relationship between AAT
>>> Records,
>>> generate a triple X skos:broader Y.
>>> Alternatively, your transformation could be as follows: for each AAT
>>> Record of type Concept, generate an instance of skos:Concept. For
>>> each
>>> AAT Record of type Concept, walk up the parent/child relationships
>>> until you find another AAT Record of type Concept, and generate a
>>> triple X skos:broader Y.
>>> These are not complete descriptions of each transformation, but I
>>> hope
>>> they illustrate the point that the AAT metamodel *does not constrain
>>> you* with respect to how you represent the same data as SKOS. Just
>>> because there is a "parent/child" relationship between "records" in
>>> the AAT data, doesn't mean you must generate a triple X
>>> skos:broader Y
>>> in the SKOS representation.
>>> Similarly with English Heritage's cultural heritage thesauri. The
>>> metamodel for their data does not constrain you; you have an open
>>> choice with respect to the pattern of representation you
>>> choose. I.e. you are not forced to choose a particular pattern, there
>>> is enough information in the metamodel to allow you to choose. See
>>> e.g. the choice I made in [1].
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alistair
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/#4.2
>>>> If the second aeroplane format is considered consistent with the
>>>> SKOS data model, although not best practice, then this could
>>>> potentially meet part of the concern. However the second aeroplane
>>>> format would not capture the semantics that:
>>>> [aeroplanes_by_wing_number should not be used for indexing]. As
>>>> you mentioned in the first response, this could be achieved by a
>>>> local extension to SKOS. If this does prove to be a common feature
>>>> then at the least some (best practice) example would assist
>>>> interoperability by encouraging common practice.
>>>> It may be that this will not turn out to be a problem as practice
>>>> develops. However it was an issue in our experience with existing
>>>> cultural heritage thesaurus representations and a similar issue
>>>> surfaced in BSI Part 5 discussions when converting to ZThes as a
>>>> legacy term-based thesaurus example (I've appended an extract from
>>>> our email on this as a PP below).
>>>> I think it would be worth considering how to provide assistance to
>>>> vocabulary owners in creating SKOS representations, including
>>>> patterns for creating collection structures. This could be
>>>> associated with the Primer, or as part of best practice examples.
>>>> 2. After just reviewing the current SKOS collection model and the
>>>> relevant sections in the Reference and Primer, we're still unclear
>>>> as to how SKOS collections are envisaged to be used. Its not clear
>>>> to us what precisely an application could do with a SKOS
>>>> collection on importing a SKOS file.
>>>> The BSI Standard has a Superordinate relationship from an Array to
>>>> "A higher-level concept to which this array is subordinated".
>>>> There is no such link in SKOS. In BSI, the Array is intended to
>>>> represent groupings of sibling concepts (mainly for display
>>>> purposes). Is that the main intention in SKOS?
>>>> The reference has a disclaimer in the text on Collections: EG
>>>> "Furthermore, where "node labels" are used in the systematic
>>>> display, it may not always be possible to fully reconstruct the
>>>> systematic display from a SKOS representation alone. Fully
>>>> representing all of the information represented in a systematic
>>>> display of a thesaurus or other knowledge organization system,
>>>> including details of layout and presentation, is beyond the scope
>>>> of SKOS. "
>>>> It would certainly not be easy and several assumptions would have
>>>> to be made to create the link between a member of a Collection and
>>>> the superordinate concept. There are no constraints on what
>>>> concepts can be members of a Collection (eg that they are all
>>>> siblings), nor that concepts must belong to only one Collection.
>>>> If you cannot recreate the original use (thesaurus node labels)
>>>> what is the purpose of Collections? Are SKOS collections intended
>>>> to serve a wider purpose than capturing thesaurus node labels -
>>>> are there use cases? If there is a consensus on their intended
>>>> purpose then perhaps the documentation could be extended to
>>>> reflect this.
>>>> regards
>>>> Doug
>>>> PS  Answers to specific questions IN CAPS INLINE below
>>>> PPS Extract from one of our contributions to BSI Part 5
>>>> discussions where we (Ceri) provided a BSI-ZThes round trip
>>>> conversion
>>>> Node labels
>>>> Zthes uses a flag to indicate termType - one of the possible
>>>> values for this is "NL" - intended to indicate node labels / facet
>>>> indicators / guide terms. Rather than being part of a separate
>>>> "array" structure these terms form part of the main hierarchy in
>>>> Zthes. This practice also occurs in some published thesauri that
>>>> are not based on Zthes. The BS8723 'core' format has no support
>>>> for node labels and arrays, so it was unclear how to flag a guide
>>>> term in the core format, apart from using some convention to
>>>> modify the display term itself (e.g. angled brackets). A possible
>>>> suggestion is the use of an optional concept attribute to denote
>>>> guide terms, so legacy thesauri may be modelled without altering
>>>> the existing hierarchy. The use of thesaurus arrays could then be
>>>> an optional (preferred) alternative to the attribute in the (full)
>>>> format. This would allow the standard to make a recommendation of
>>>> 'best practice' while facilitating the mapping of many existing
>>>> thesauri to the
>> revised without requiring changes to the hierarchical structure.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alistair Miles [mailto:alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk <mailto:alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>>>>> ]
>>>> Sent: 22 November 2008 11:08
>>>> To: Tudhope D S (AT)
>>>> Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic
>>>> relationships
>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>> Thanks for your response. Further comments inline.
>>>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:39PM -0000, Tudhope D S (AT) wrote:
>>>>> Hi Al
>>>>> thanks for getting back
>>>>> I take your points about indexing and correspondence between SKOS
>>>>> and BSI.
>>>>> However, they don't address the main issue I wanted to raise. I
>>>>> see your personal note deals with it more and I think indicates
>>>>> that this issue is still somewhat under consideration?
>>>>> I may have confused things by suggesting a work around. Let's set
>>>>> aside the non-indexing issue for now.
>>>>> I'll restate the issue:
>>>>> Concern: Insufficient support/guidance for legacy systems wrt
>>>>> guide terms / facet indicators
>>>>> My concern is that SKOS collections do NOT represent common
>>>>> practice in most existing thesauri
>>>>> and (if this is true) there is a danger that they might
>>>>> constitute a significant barrier to take up of SKOS by vocabulary
>>>>> owners who would otherwise wish to do so, unless appropriate
>>>>> guidance/alternatives are available.
>>>>> I think conversion of legacy thesauri to SKOS is an important
>>>>> application for SKOS and its wider take up.
>>>>> Do we know how many thesauri actually follow the SKOS collections
>>>>> for such structures?
>>>>> I don't think I know of any though I expect a few exist.
>>>>> Most that I know incorporate facet indicators as part of the
>>>>> hierarchy.  (I'm happy to be corrected if this not the case)
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "part of the hierarchy".
>>>>>>> The following choice would also be consistent with the SKOS data
>>>>>>> model, although in my opinion is not best practice:
>>>> Consider the following example. The systematic display for my
>>>> example
>>>> aeroplane thesaurus looks like this:
>>>> ---
>>>> aeroplanes
>>>> .<aeroplanes by wing number>
>>>> ..monoplanes
>>>> ..biplanes
>>>> ..triplanes
>>>> ---
>>>> The alphabetic display for my thesaurus looks like this:
>>>> ---
>>>> aeroplanes
>>>>  NT biplanes
>>>>  NT monoplanes
>>>>  NT triplanes
>>>> biplanes BT aeroplanes
>>>> monoplanes BT aeroplanes
>>>> triplanes BT aeroplanes
>>>> ---
>>>> Now, is "aeroplanes by wing number" part of "the hierarchy"?
>>>> My point is, for a thesaurus like this, you have an *open choice*
>>>> about
>>>> how to represent the underlying data using SKOS.
>>>> The following choice would be compatible with the above displays,
>>>> would be consistent with the SKOS data model, and in my opinion
>>>> follows best practice (also consistent with BS8723-5):
>>>> ---
>>>> ex:aeroplanes rdf:type skos:Concept ;
>>>>  skos:narrower ex:monoplanes, ex:biplanes, ex:triplanes .
>>>> ex:aeroplanes_by_wing_number rdf:type skos:Collection ;
>>>>  skos:member ex:monoplanes, ex:biplanes, ex:triplanes .
>>>> ---
>>>> The following choice would also be consistent with the SKOS data
>>>> model, although in my opinion is not best practice:
>>>> ---
>>>> ex:aeroplanes rdf:type skos:Concept ;
>>>>  skos:narrower ex:aeroplanes_by_wing_number .
>>>> ex:aeroplanes_by_wing_number rdf:type skos:Concept ;
>>>>  skos:narrower ex:monoplanes, ex:biplanes, ex:triplanes .
>>>> ---
>>>> What I'm trying to say is, in my experience, for a thesaurus where
>>>> node labels have been used, *either* of the above approaches could
>>>> reasonably be taken.
>>>>> What do we expect vocabulary owners who do not follow the SKOS
>>>>> collections semantics to do?
>>>>> If we expect them to change their vocabulary structure is that a
>>>>> realistic expectation?
>>>> Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "change their vocabulary
>>>> structure"?
>>>> For a thesaurus such as the example above, either choice could
>>>> reasonably be made wrt to the SKOS representation. In either case,
>>>> no
>>>> change would be required to the systematic or alphabetic displays.
>>>> How the data is represented within whatever thesaurus management
>>>> system is used to manage the thesaurus is essentially irrelevant,
>>>> and
>>>> need not be changed either. How you structure and manage your data
>>>> within your systems, and how you expose your data to the rest of the
>>>> world, need not be the same.
>>>>> I personally like the SKOS collections semantics but the issue is
>>>>> a concern because I'd like to see wide take up of SKOS by
>>>>> existing vocabularies. Successful standards need to strike a
>>>>> balance between best practice and legacy practice. Antoine's
>>>>> extensions [your ref 6 below] seem to go towards meeting this
>>>>> issue thought I'm not sure what their status is?
>>>>> I think though at least some guidance is needed in the primer
>>>>> with some suggestions for what to do if legacy vocabularies
>>>>> owners do not want to completely restructure for guide terms/
>>>>> facet indicators. Maybe this could be considered for final primer
>>>>> version?
>>>> To reiterate, I don't believe that using the SKOS collections
>>>> framework as illustrated in the first option above requires any
>>>> legacy
>>>> vocabularies to restructure anything. How they structure their data
>>>> internally and how they expose their data to the world could be (and
>>>> often are) different.
>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Alistair
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Alistair Miles [mailto:alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk <mailto:alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>>>>>> ]
>>>>> Sent: Thu 06/11/2008 09:34
>>>>> To: Tudhope D S (AT)
>>>>> Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships
>>>>> Dear Doug,
>>>>> Thank you for your support and your helpful comments. In response
>>>>> to
>>>>> the comment below:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 01:54:26PM +0000, SWD Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>> ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/160 <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/160
>>>>>> Raised by: Antoine Isaac
>>>>>> On product: All
>>>>>> Raised by Doug Tudhope in [1]
>>>>>> While SKOS collections represents best practice in thesaurus
>>>>>> construction, many
>>>>>> prominent existing thesauri (and related KOS) do not follow the
>>>>>> SKOS collections
>>>>>> semantics. Instead, they model guide terms, facet indicators etc
>>>>>> as part of a
>>>>>> hierarchy using standard Broader/Narrower relationships. This
>>>>>> creates a problem
>>>>>> in converting such existing KOS into SKOS. From discussions it
>>>>>> appears other
>>>>>> people have come to a similar judgment in converting such cases
>>>>>> to SKOS - being
>>>>>> reluctant to change the existing structure of a KOS designed by
>>>>>> a third party.
>>>>>> The pragmatic decision is often to create a (nonSKOS) property
>>>>>> of a concept, to
>>>>>> say essentially, 'NOT_FOR_INDEXING'. This allows a basic
>>>>>> distinction to be made
>>>>>> between a facet indicator (or guide term) and a concept
>>>>>> available for indexing.
>>>>>> Can we consider if something like this could be introduced into
>>>>>> SKOS to
>>>>>> facilitate conversion of many legacy KOS? The primer can always
>>>>>> encourage the
>>>>>> full collections approach as best practice.
>>>>> The requirement to indicate that some concepts are not intended for
>>>>> use in indexing was raised in the SKOS Use Cases and Requirements
>>>>> document [2]. Meeting this requirement was then discussed as
>>>>> ISSUE-46. The working group resolved to close this requirement
>>>>> because
>>>>> all matters related to indexing were deemed out of scope for
>>>>> SKOS, and
>>>>> better treated by vocabularies such as Dublin Core [3] or other
>>>>> third
>>>>> party vocabularies. We propose to make no change to the SKOS
>>>>> Reference, can you live with this?
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Alistair
>>>>> Sean
>>>>> Personal comment by Alistair: I realise that the treatment of KOS
>>>>> elements such as guide terms, facet indicators and node labels, and
>>>>> the choice of whether to use the SKOS collections framework or
>>>>> whether
>>>>> model as you describe, remains a difficult issue, and requires
>>>>> careful
>>>>> judgment. However, on a positive note, I was pleased to learn
>>>>> recently
>>>>> of the very close correspondance between the modeling of node
>>>>> labels
>>>>> in the BS 8723-5 UML model and the modeling of collections in
>>>>> SKOS. Nicolas Cochard did an excellent job of illustrating the
>>>>> alignment between these two models at the ISKO event in July
>>>>> [4,5]. I
>>>>> hope that extensions to SKOS and best practices based on the new BS
>>>>> 8723-5 data model will help to clear up some of the difficulties
>>>>> here
>>>>> in the near future.
>>>>> See also Antoine's message [6] for some suggestions for the
>>>>> development of extensions to meet your requirement.
>>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0062.html
>>>>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0062.html
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts
>>>>>  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/#R-IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts
>>>>> [ISSUE-46] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/46 <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/46
>>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#item10 <http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#item10
>>>>> [4] http://www.iskouk.org/presentations/cochard_BS8723-exchange-format.pdf
>>>>>  <http://www.iskouk.org/presentations/cochard_BS8723-exchange-format.pdf
>>>>> [5] http://www.iskouk.org/SKOS_July2008.htm <http://www.iskouk.org/SKOS_July2008.htm
>>>>> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0286.html
>>>>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0286.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alistair Miles
>>>>> Senior Computing Officer
>>>>> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
>>>>> Department of Zoology
>>>>> The Tinbergen Building
>>>>> University of Oxford
>>>>> South Parks Road
>>>>> Oxford
>>>>> OX1 3PS
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman <http://purl.org/net/aliman>
>>>>> Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alistair Miles
>>>>> Senior Computing Officer
>>>>> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
>>>>> Department of Zoology
>>>>> The Tinbergen Building
>>>>> University of Oxford
>>>>> South Parks Road
>>>>> Oxford
>>>>> OX1 3PS
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman <http://purl.org/net/aliman>
>>>>> Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
>>>> --
>>>> Alistair Miles
>>>> Senior Computing Officer
>>>> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
>>>> Department of Zoology
>>>> The Tinbergen Building
>>>> University of Oxford
>>>> South Parks Road
>>>> Oxford
>>>> OX1 3PS
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman <http://purl.org/net/aliman>
>>>> Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
> Dr Alasdair J G Gray
> Research Associate
> Computing Science Department
> University of Glasgow
> Tel: (0141) 330 6292
> agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk
> http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~agray/
> http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk/
> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 14:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:54 UTC