Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontolog Panel Session: UoM_Ontology_Standard - getting ready for the OASIS QUOMOS TC transition - Thu 7-Jan-2010

Archives

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 7-January-2010
  • Start Time: 10:30am PST / 1:30pm EST / 7:30pm CET / 6:30pm GMT / 18:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: 1.5~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in Number:
    • from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
    • When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
    • from Europe, call:
      • Austria 0820-4000-1577
      • Belgium 070-35-9992
      • France 0826-100-280
      • Germany 01805-00-7642
      • Ireland 0818-270-037
      • Italy 848-390-179
      • Spain 0902-886-056
      • Switzerland 0848-560-327
      • UK 0844-581-9148
    • callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
    • or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20100107
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20100107@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • For those who cannot join us, or who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive, as well as all proceeedings are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.
  • Special thanks to Dr. Steve Ray for inviting Dr. Charles Ehrlich to join us at this session to share with us his insights.

Resources

Attendees

  • Other registered participants (who may have joined us after the role call):
    • ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community); or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...

Agenda & Proceedings

1. Opening by session Chair -- Howard Mason

  • Status of preparation for launch of the OASIS TC on 21 January
  • Key actions for prospective participants

2. Historical context on the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), a personal perspective -- Charles Ehrlich

3. Scope of the next phase of this work under the auspices of the OASIS QUOMOS TC -- Ed Barkmeyer

4. Technical discussion (panel) - Pat Hayes, Chip Masters, HansPeter_de_Koning, David Leal, Ed Barkmeyer, Charles Ehrlich

5. Q & A and Open Discussion (All) -- please refer to process above

  • Identifying who is going to be involved
  • answer any question relating to QUOMOS TC participation, and the Jan-21 "First Meeting"
  • technical issue discussion
  • ... etc.

6. Summary and conclusion by session Chair -- Howard Mason

Proceedings

  • The resolution that all work product of the UoM_Ontology_Standard working group incubated at Ontolog (which is under a free and open license in accordance with the Ontolog IPR Policy), to be transferred and donated to the emerging OASIS QUOMOS TC upon the establishment of that Technical Committee on 21-Jan-2010, was adopted unanimously.

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

Peter P. Yim:

.

Welcome to the Ontolog Panel Session: UoM_Ontology_Standard - getting ready for the OASIS QUOMOS TC transition - Thu 7-Jan-2010

  • Panelists:

o Dr. Charles Ehrlich (NIST) -- some historical context on the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), a personal perspective

o Mr. Edward Barkmeyer (NIST) -- Scope of the OASIS QUOMOS TC work

o Dr. Pat Hayes (IHMC) -- UoM_Ontology_Standard_CLIF_draft

o Mr. David Leal (CAESAR) -- UoM_Ontology_Standard_UML_Model_draft

o Mr. HansPeter_de_Koning (ESA/ESTEC) & Dr. James Masters (TopQuadrant) -- UoM_Ontology_Standard_OWL_draft

.

session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2010_01_07

.

anonymous morphed into Howard Mason

anonymous morphed into Jim Disbrow

anonymous morphed into MartinWeber

anonymous morphed into David Leal

anonymous1 morphed into Frank Olken

anonymous morphed into Chip Masters

anonymous morphed into Yavuz Eren

Chip Masters: @Peter Yim: I emailed you the slides for my slot.

Peter P. Yim: thanks, Chip, glad you are alerting me to them

Frank Olken: I do not seem to see slides for Charles Erlich's remarks on VIM. Am I missing

something?

[PeterYim:] Chuck Ehrlich is speaking on a personal capacity and will not have slides today

Steve Ray: For the record, I'd like to thank Chuck for a great, information-packed presentation.

Ed Barkmeyer: The major link is to http://www.bipm.org

Pat Hayes: Ed just made my point for me.

Peter P. Yim: @Frank - Chuck will email us some links that we will post and add the collection of

resources [ update: they're in ... see:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2010_01_07#nid26DX ]

Steve Ray: How does the VIM handle multiple human languages? Is English the normative form?

Steve Ray: When is the deadline to provide feedback to the VIM3 committee?

Peter P. Yim: @ChuckEhrlich - the ulterior motive for some of us is that we will be able to help drive

ontology-based standards that co-exists with natural language standards, so that standards are

interpretable both by humans and machine ... is this a right time (VIM3) to bring it up for the VIM

WG's consideration? ... how can we best approach it?

Ed Barkmeyer: Per Peter's comment: the problem is that there is so much data that human

interpretation is giving way to machine interpretation in many decision areas, and that means we

must get the machine interpretations to match the established human ones, as distinct from what that

programmer/knowledge-engineer came up with.

Mike Bennett: The issue of non physical quantities like cash currency amounts may be a technical

issue but it also has strong implications for scope, e.g. whethe someone like me working on

financial ontology needs to be aware of UoM work or not

Pat Hayes: @mike, indeed.

Ed Barkmeyer: Hans-Peter's question is really also a question of scope for the QUOMOS effort: we have

discusssed things like including "currency".

Pat Hayes: re scope, I am also concerned about eg psychological data collection and processing.

MartinWeber: @PatHayes: Yeah I would expect QUOMOS to support definitions of arbitrary proprietary

quantities and units, too...

Howard Mason: Addressing these questions is a great example of the concept raised at the last summit

- synergy between ontologists and standardizers

Mike Bennett: @ Martin & Pat I guess the question of scope is one of context - whether it's about

quantification of things at the most primitive possible level, or whether (as I was starting to

think) it's about creating an ontology of (physical) units of measure. Can the context be defined

ontologically, obviating the English / French issue?

Ravi Sharma: I Echo Mike Benett

Pat Hayes: @mike on context, there isn't a single accepted technique, but semi-formally we can just

be very disciplined with the use of names within the ontology.

Mike Bennett: @Pat that would make sense, I've just been reworking part of the EDM Council upper

ontology to deal with the relationship between Value and Price (Value being a sort of platonic

ideal); I can share this in questions. There are two kinds of things to which one can apply the

concept of expression: expression of a platonic ideal like economic value, meaning etc., versus

expression of things (incuding price again) in multiple mutable ways.

Pat Hayes: mike, would love to see more detail on that. Yes we can be deliberately ambigouous about

platonic vs concrete.

HansPeter_de_Koning: @EdBarkmeyer: To be precise on your slide 2 I would replace "Metric

prefixes" with "Prefixes (decimal multiples and submultiples, binary multiples)"

Ravi Sharma: Ed: Is it not sufficient for Basic Units to first define the current measurent standard

such as (made up example---emission from S to P state of hydrogen atom for frequency standard etc,

and then relate freq, similarly for time which is derived unit from fequency or Cs Atom etc., etc

and similarly for distance such as meter, etc.etc. these change as physics evolves but are always

defined as unique at a given time, thus ontology should relate these basic standards to other

standards.?

Ravi Sharma: Ed: Similar to ODM the CLIF to OWL mapping becomes most important for UOM ontology to

succeeed?

Pat Hayes: ravi. OWL is embeddable in CLIF, so its more of an extraction than a translation.

Ravi Sharma: Ed: What is the mechanism and which SDO will be reesponsible such that ontology would be

used to synchronize and keep these standards bodies efforts (obviously related) current on a

reasonable time scale, currently it is voluntary and ad-hoc at best? but going forward?

Pat Hayes: [in reference to Ed's slides/talk ... the UoM_Ontology_Standard will be derived from its

normative CLIF representation, and will also be expressed in] owl 2 dl, yes.

Ravi Sharma: Ed: how will you relate ontology efforts such as Sweet in to this?

Ravi Sharma: Pat: Thanks, is it true of all CLIF that there are corresponding OWL statements etc?

Pat Hayes: ravi: no. clif is 'larger' than OWL.

Ravi Sharma: Pat: Does that mean there is a reasonably unique representation for CLIF in OWL?

Pat Hayes: Yes.

Ravi Sharma: Pat: Many thanks

Hajo Rijgersberg: It is no problem incorporatig currencies in the ontology. Start by just defining

every currency term (or rather, name). Next, express their definition in terms of other currencies

using conditional equations, such as "if calendar time = january 2007 then 1 dollar = 0.50 euro" (or

whatever, I don't know the exact rate at this moment). These definitions will/can become independent

objects, rather than properties of the particular currencies.

Ravi Sharma: Hajo: you are addressing ontology based on relative values without any standard?

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ravi: What do you mean with without any standard? I think I don't understand your

point... sorry. Could you try to explain?

Pat Hayes: Hajo, i think the point is whether the highlevel concepts apply to them or not.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Pat: So, probably the high-level concepts (if I understand what you mean) are

applicable to currencies too...

Mike Bennett: @Hajo: The issue of currency is not a technical issue of "how can we make this ontology

express that thing", rather it's a set of relationships which can be expressed ontologically, but is

related to a more general set of concepts and relationships than those that sit at the top of an

ontology of physical units of measure. There is no reason to try and shoe-horn the currency

questions into the physical UoM work.

Mike Bennett: But conversely, if the upper ontology is expressed right, the place where the "Physical

UoM" fits in to those concepts. If it doesn't we won't have expressed the more primitive concepts

correctly.

Pat Hayes: Hajo, I think that was the point of bringing them up, yes. Quantities of monetary value,

etc..

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Mike: do I understand you correctly that you don't want currencies in the

ontology? Why not?

Mike Bennett: @Hajo at this point I need to know whether the ontology is to cover non physical units

or not, because if it is then we need to include those more primitive concepts I'm alluding to. I'm

equally happy if this is a physical ontology which does not include currency. Either way, the part

of the ontology that expresses measurements of physical quantity, should not include currency.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Mike: Indeed, a physical module should not contain currencies.

Mike Bennett: @Hajo we agree.

MartinWeber: It's funny that the currency thing comes up again and again in the scope of people

talking about units of measure ...

MartinWeber: It's a phenomena that changes your measurement readings over time and space and has a

great uncertainty attached to it .. Oh and it's not fixed at all

Mike Bennett: @Martin: that's correct, but it's not simply a vague thing, it's a different kind of

thing.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Martin: What do you mean with "it's not fixed at all"? Are you maybe referring to

something I stated?

MartinWeber: @Mike: different kind of thing: exactly, currency looks like a unit but has a wholly

different philosophy / mechanics behind

Hajo Rijgersberg: What do you mean, Martin? Please explain.

Pat Hayes: again, Ed has made my point. Ravi: we will not address questions of how units are

dtermined in practice. "the meter" is assumed to be a continuing entity, even as the method of

determining it changes.

Mike Bennett: @Martin that's right. It can be ontologised. I've written up some notes on this which I

will tidy up and put on the EDM Council Semantics Repository site. I'll post a link to the group

when I've done that .

MartinWeber: @Hajo: I was referring to there is no definite value a certain currency has. There is

no "correct" value for one euro e.g.; you always have to include way more context in your

measurement of a quantity of currency than you need for physical units. I don't doubt that

currency CAN be ontologized, but I doubt it will easily fit into a framework for *physical* units.

Mike Bennett: @Martin exactly so.

MartinWeber: feels sort of "everything looks like a nail if you only wield a hammer".

MartinWeber: (trying to express currencies in a framework for phys units)

Ravi Sharma: Hajo: I meant to say that the relationships among currencies depend on time and not on

any currency being a "gold" standard, unlike time or distance?

Hajo Rijgersberg: OK. What I mean is a currency is like a unit, but indeed, it has a (time) dependent

definition (or conversion) in terms of other currencies. So, that's a kind of a more special

definition statement than we are used to with units. Right?

MartinWeber: ...time, location, the feelings of people involved in trade, public hysteria,

propaganda, ... oh and so many more things...

Ravi Sharma: Martin: you have already clarified what i wanted to for Hojo, thanks.

Hajo Rijgersberg: I gave a time-conditional example of dollar and euro.

Mike Bennett: @Hajo you are right. There are things which are units which do not form part of an

ontology of physical units of measure. So Units is more general than Physical units, just as

Quantity is more general than Physical Quantity.

Hajo Rijgersberg: Or I should say: a date-time dependent definition (or conversion rule).

MartinWeber: there's different currency exchange markets with differenting exchange rates at the

same time, too, only differing by location. Think about arbitrage. So yes, there's (way) more

necessary context for currencies than for physical units. It's like measuring in a different

universe IMO.

Hajo Rijgersberg: OK, these definions (or conversion rules) should be time and location dependent. Do

I understand your point correctly now? Good point.

MartinWeber: well, I meantioned time and location, but there's more to look at (like system of

market -- what defines the value of a currency? relative to what? etc.)

Ravi Sharma: Hojo:there is another semantics implied: take 2 cases, I take a Euro in Europe, it has a

certain purchase value based on european perception of value of Euro. Now take that Euro to US, its

value will depend on the exchange rate related perception of Euro and this will only be true for

free market curencies which are progressively being regulated and sovereign risks are invloved in

calculations. Further conversion to government cotrolled currencies will not result in a

commercially correct value??

MartinWeber: @Hajo: I think it's outside the scope although parts of the underlying framework

decisions might be reused for expressing currencies. But then again, as Mike has stated already,

there seem to be currency ontologies out there...

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Martin: OK, so a definition of a currency may be dependent on many variables. So

we're going to have quite complex if statements in these definitions (or rather, conversion rules).

No problem in theory, I would say.

Tom Russ: Even within a single currency, you have the issue of time-dependent variation. The entire

issue of using inflation-adjusted values for economic analysis recognizes that a dollar in 1980 is

not even the same as a dollar in 2010.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Tom: That's something that an analysis or economic theory or something should take

account of. It's not really something for in a units of measure ontology, right?

Tom Russ: @Hajo. Right I agree that it doesn't belong in units of measure. I was just remarking that

the temporal aspect applies even within a single currency. So it does have different behavior.

Meters (more or less) have always been the same length.

MartinWeber: ...at least a meter won't change if a war breaks out in some region of the world

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ravi: looks like these if statements are even more complex than I already thought,

right? But in theory, still, no problem, I would think?

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Martin: Please show me such an ontology, because I would be surprised.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Martin: Watch out, there have been many feet...

Hajo Rijgersberg: At least already three in the Netherlands in the past...

Ravi Sharma: Hojo:at a given time you have only relative values among currencies and we have many

websites for lookup, but I bet they differ as do the values defined by central banks?

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, probably. But that should all be in such an ontology, ideally. I admit, that's

a bunge of work.

Ravi Sharma: Hojo: first the trading communities have to agree in a contract as to which are the

valid currency exchanges from their perspectives such as LIBOR rate, etc. Then the relationship map

will only work for international trade. It is not clear how the internal (intra-country) values will

fluctuate or be related to external value of currency, these are interesting models from eco and

trade perspectives?

MartinWeber: @Hajo: Mike Bennett @ 15:07 EST. Try to get hold of his notes...

Ravi Sharma: Hajo:you are aware of ebXRL type of work I suppose, they have to deal with currency

conversions?

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ravi: So it is quite a challenge to specify all that formally in an ontology. But

in fact very important work, I would guess, if there are computer systems that could benefit of

that.

Hajo Rijgersberg: No, I don't know ebXRL. I'll check it out. Thanks. [ppy comment: Ravi could be

refrrring to XBRL here]

Mike Bennett: Guys, it's simpler than that. Economic value is a thing (with sub types e.g. value in

use, value in exchange). The kind of thing it is, we can call "Quality". Quality is something which

can be expressed. The expression of the quantity of Economic Value, is Price (or Valuation). That is

itself expressed in various mutable ways (percentage, currency-and-number, heuristic e.g. bond

yields).

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Martin: What do you mean?

Ravi Sharma: Hajo: Yes certainly it is a great help to develop such "relative-ontology" of currencies

to the world of eCommerce and international trade and is very important if effort is backed by

resources.

Mike Bennett: @Pat - [referring to Pat's slide] if you lose the word "physical" in line 1, I suspect

this all works at the higher level we were talking about.

Ed Barkmeyer: The concern I have with Pat's model is the relationship between scales and quantity

values. In VIM 3.25m is a quantity value. If "meter" is a function, does that mean that 'measurement

unit' will be a 'function' in CLIF?

Peter P. Yim: I believe we might have to defer some of the technical discussion to the future QUOMOS TC

and move forward (with this meeting)

Ravi Sharma: Peter, Chip, Howard, Steve and Ed and other speakers, participants many thanks. Ravi

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ravi: That's great. We should do something with that!

Mike Bennett: Is the call over? My line dropped. I didn't want to distract with questions of currency

other than to know whether I should participate in this work

Pat Hayes: mike, we extended the time.

Mike Bennett: Thx. dialling back in

HansPeter_de_Koning: Sorry I just lost my audio connection, will try to reconnect ASAP

Pat Hayes: hans-peter, lets take this offline, i think we agree but i would like to know more detail.

HansPeter_de_Koning: I am back in conference

Peter P. Yim: @Chip - kindly post a message and the reference link(s) to the [uom-ontology-std] list,

per your presentation (just a reminder)

Ed Barkmeyer: I think Chip is right about the "logical union" of QUDV and QUDT.

Chip Masters: @Peter: Yes, I will post everything to uom-ontology-std as soon as we have updated the

site.

HansPeter_de_Koning: @Pat: I will send an e-mail on the concepts of free vector and torsor and

the relations to scale

Howard: for those who plan to be joining the OASIS QUOMOS TC, please indicate

MartinWeber: *going to be involved at least to link to UnitsML TC* (I'm a member via NIST)

Pat Hayes: i will be involved, once i set up membership.

Steve Ray: I am actively working my membership on the TC with OASIS and CMU's primary member.

Ed Barkmeyer: I will be involved as an observing member until we have NIST management agreement on

our role.

Frank Olken: I expect to participate in the OASIS QUOMOS TC. The primary LBNL representative to

OASIS

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Peter: I'm afraid my organization isn't a member of OASIS. What can I do?

Peter P. Yim: @Hajo - that's one of the things we may be discussing, as the next item on the agenda

(issues relating to participation)

Ed Barkmeyer: Hajo: You should talk that over with the OASIS membership folk. There are personal

memberships, and you may be a member for some other organization with which you are affiliated by

whatever agreement you have with them.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ed: I also have a relation with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, but they are no

member either.

Hajo Rijgersberg: @Ed: Who are that, the OASIS membership folk?

Jim Disbrow: @Ed - Is the U.S. Department of Energy a member of Oasis? or how would I find out if it

is?

MartinWeber: @Jim: go to http://oasis-open.org. Click "Members" work yourself through all the

sponsors/contributors/liasons...

Ed Barkmeyer: @Hajo: if you go to the website, www.oasis-open.org, there is a "membership questions"

page, and a means of creating an email to the people who can help.

Mike Bennett: My firm (& client) are not members of OASIS. If the scope is physical measures I won't

have much to offer. If I can help offline with these broader conceptual issues I'd be glad to put my

input in via existing members.

Hajo Rijgersberg: The organizations I am affiliated to are no members. I'm checking out the website

right now for possibilities to become an individual member.

Jim Disbrow: If the US Goverment is a member, or if I can join via NIST's memership, I'll be

involved. The $300 Individual membership fee is an economic barrier. But I'm interested.

Pat Hayes: sounds good.

Frank Olken: The primary LBNL representative to OASIS has approved my membership in the TC. I

believe we are down to paper shuffling and my creation of login/password with OASIS.

Hajo Rijgersberg: $300? Yes, that's a barrier.

Ed Barkmeyer: @JimDisbrow: the OASIS membership is by agency. But we can talk about other

relationships.

Peter P. Yim: those having issues with OASIS membership could best try to get it resolved by emailing

Scott McGrath <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org> with a copy to Howard <howard.mason@baesystems.com>

and Peter <peter.yim@cim3.com>

Peter P. Yim: @Hajo - let's address your issues offline (again, please email Scott cc Howard and Peter)

Steve Ray: Great meeting. Nice job of chairing, Howard. Thanks very much.

Pat Hayes: i have to leave now. bye all.

Peter P. Yim: @Hans-Peter - let's address your issues offline too (again, please email Scott cc Howard

and Peter) ... important, we need you as one of the OWL editors

Hajo Rijgersberg: Thanks everyone!

Peter P. Yim: great meeting ... thank you all!

Jim Disbrow: @Frank - who is the LBNL representative?

Peter P. Yim: @Jim - not sure if Frank is still online ... the LBNL rep could be Mary Ann Piette

Jim Disbrow: @Peter - thanks

Peter P. Yim: @Jim - suggest you ping Frank offline just to make sure. Thanks for joining us today.

Peter P. Yim: bye, everyone ... Thanks again!

- session ended 12:57pm PST -

-- end of chat-transcript --

Further Question & Remarks:

  • (before 2010.01.21) please post them to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv
  • (after 2010.01.21) please refer them to the OASIS QUOMOS TC

References from Charles Ehrlich

Here are the references that I mentioned in my presentation:

BIPM-related:

Available from ISO (for a fee):

  • ISO 80000 Quantities and units (14 parts), published 2009
  • ISO 704 Terminology Work - Principles and methods
  • ISO 1087-1 Terminology Work - Vocabulary
  • ISO 10241 International terminology standards - Preparation and layout (under revision)

Available from Metrologia:

  • "On the History of Quantity Calculus and the International System", J. de Boer, Metrologia, 1994/95, 31, 405-429

Two documents that I meant to mention but didn't (available for free from the NIST web site):

I hope that these references are useful to the Ontology Forum members, and appreciate their willingness to work towards harmonization with the VIM3. --ChuckEhrlich / 2010.01.07

Audio Recording of this Session

  • To download the recording of the session, click here
    • the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
  • Conference Date and Time: 7-Jan-2010 10:38am~12:57pm PST
  • Duration of Recording: 2 Hour 14.5 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 15.4 MB (in mp3 format)
  • suggestions:
    • its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
    • Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2010_01_07&oldid=2618"