I wrote: (01)
"Sounds great to me. I was taking "community" to mean a COP or COI." (02)
Which is apparently what was intended! (03)
Note to Self: Try not to read e-mails too quickly in the middle of the
day while multitasking:) (04)
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton (05)
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chiusano Joseph
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:52 PM
To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP; Andrew S. Townley;
rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Nathan Einwechter; Dennis L. Thomas; David RR Webber (XML); John F.
Sowa
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology (07)
Sounds great to me. I was taking "community" to mean a COP or COI. (08)
Joe (09)
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton (010)
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com (011)
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:42 PM
To: 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'; 'Andrew S. Townley';
rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Nathan Einwechter'; 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Dennis L. Thomas';
'John F. Sowa'
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology (012)
Joe,
Well, from my perspective, the "community" is the difference between an
SOA and a "web service". You can take any piece of functionality and
expose it as a service - fine, this has value sometimes. But there is
no sense of community, no contract, nothing to "architect". When there
is a mutual understanding by 2 or more parties there is community, a
thing with parts, something to architect - to me this is the essence of
an SOA. (013)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chiusano Joseph
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP; Andrew S. Townley;
> rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Nathan Einwechter; Dennis L. Thomas; David RR Webber (XML); John
F.
> Sowa
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
> That's ok Paul - thanks for the clarification (I was fine with either
> answer, just wanted to be informed).
>
> Open question for all (including me): What characteristics would a
> community-centric SOA methodology have that a non-community-centric
> SOA methodology would not? Or more simply, what would be the primary
> differences between community-centric SOA and non-community-centric
SOA?
>
> Or is it more about the application of the technology(s) per
> requirements, than about methodologies?
>
> Joe
>
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20005
> O: 202-508-6514
> C: 202-251-0731
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul S Prueitt
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:07 PM
> To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP; Andrew S. Townley;
> rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Nathan Einwechter; David RR Webber (XML); Dennis L. Thomas; John
F.
> Sowa
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
> My language is very clear that this is not been vetted as yet by
OASIS.
>
> One can try to make these things as clear as possible, but still fail
> to cross the t s and dot the i s.
>
> My appology
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Chiusano Joseph
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP; Andrew S. Townley;
> rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Nathan Einwechter; Dennis L. Thomas; David RR Webber (XML); John
F.
> Sowa
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
>
> All,
>
> Just a quick clarification please, so that there is no
> misunderstanding by any party/at any level:
>
> Is "OASIS CCSM" something that has been vetted with OASIS leadership
> and is in process? Or is it being expressed as a possibility that
> could be realized in the future, where no vetting has been done with
OASIS?
>
> Also, if it helps: The OASIS SOA Reference Architecture work will - I
> anticipate - include a mapping of at least some of the standards
> listed below (and perhaps others that are not listed) to SOA.
>
> Joe
>
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20005
> O: 202-508-6514
> C: 202-251-0731
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Prueitt
> (ontologystream)
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: 'Andrew S. Townley'; rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Service-Oriented
> Architecture CoP
> Cc: David RR Webber (XML); Nathan Einwechter; 'Dennis L. Thomas'; John (014)
> F. Sowa
> Subject: [soa-forum] SOA and a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
> Andrew,
>
> Your effort to understand what Ballard has been doing is paying off,
> it is easy to see. You are covering ground that takes some time for
> those who are prepared, and can not be traversed by those who are not
> prepared.
>
> The dependency of the full reality of a "concept" on an experiential
> (see work by Peirce and others in semiotics) or perceptual act assigns (015)
> to this full reality a "pragmatic" axis where category formation is
> "in process" and under re-creation. Thus "knowledge representation"
> of a concept is both relative to the experience and is not (fully)
> stationary.
>
> But to the extend that the categories forming are strongly similar to
> "invariance" in other concepts (also being experienced), then we can
> see a shared scope to "something". We also see the bases for QSAR.... (016)
> as discussed in Chapter 4 and 6 of
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm
>
> The second school calls this perceptual invariance, and "semantic
> covers"
> are related to (in my mind) Sowa, Ballard, Adi, and other theories of
> semantic primitive.
>
> At this point we face some technical difficulties. Should the real
> time measurement of social discourse use the Sowa, the Ballard, or the (017)
> Adi set of primitives - (or are each of these sufficient in specific
> ways and not sufficient in other ways)?
>
> Over the next 30 -45 days I am focusing my effort on the knowledge
> management community and practices that have been developed and used
> for the purpose of knowledge elicitation.
>
> The knowledge elicitation might be fully specified as a OASIS
> standard, and we are looking at this carefully as a means to support
> community centric service methodology (CCSM). We might also see a
> supporting specification on SOA with Topic Maps.
>
> A successful OASIS CCSM specification will need to show relationship
> and use of the following
>
> WSDL
> ebXML
> BCM
> Topic Maps
> OWL Full
> BPEL
> BPMN
> UML
> SOA=IM
> SOA-CS
> FERA
>
> I do not see ebSOA distinctly and have left this out of my list for
> now, since I feel that ebXML and FERA and BPEL cover the space.
>
> Stratification of the individual conceptualization (as in the BCM
> lower layer of the four BCM layers) and automated aggregation of a
> community layer (BCM's "business layer") is the key to the
> technological innovation suggested in the BCNGroup RoadMap.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew S. Townley [mailto:andrew.townley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:26 AM
> To: rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Dennis L. Thomas; Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
> Subject: RE: a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> Thanks for answering. No problems on the delay.
>
> Please forgive the naive questions, I'm still on a bit of a vertical
> learning curve with this stuff. However, with the help of Google and
> archived comments from yourself, I think I answered my fundamental
> question: how does your work deal with the idea that the
> understanding of a concept is dependent on the person
> understanding/perceiving that concept within their current context (as (018)
> stated by David Bohm in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order")?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the answer is: it
doesn't.
>
> I found some information from a discussion between Paul, yourself and
> John Sowa from back in 2001 along with the PDF version of the FAQ and
> "First Commercial Knowledge Asset Production Process" from your
website.
> In digesting this, I think I understand the following:
>
> * a knowledge base is initially created to address a specific need,
> therefore it is only representing the theories which directly relate
> to the business needs of the stakeholders.
>
> In relation to my question, this means that you have created/defined a (019)
> shared understanding of reality within a given domain.
>
> * Within this established knowledge base and set of "compatibile"
> theories, it is clear that there can be only one unique definition for (020)
> each concept, otherwise the fundamental theories would not be
> compatible.
>
> * Paul's "choice points" that he's been talking to me about are really (021)
> each n-ary concept node with connecting nodes in the overall concept
> graph.
>
> If I understand what I read, these connections are actually based on
> assumptions or constraints which have been identified as related
> during the creation of the model and populated during the ingest of
> information into the system.
>
> * From the above, the ontology represented by the knowledge asset is
> domain-specific.
>
> * The knowledge base is not intended to explore new themes outside the (022)
> original domain or provide considerations of alternate views of
> "reality", because they would change the domain scope of the ontology.
>
> I'm lead to this conclusion from the phrase in the FAQ:
>
> "until every question the knowledgebase was intended to answer."
> (bullet #1, page 15)
>
> >From this, I am assuming that adding additional information into the
> knowledge base will create new connections and relationships within
> the concept graph, but these will be based on the theories codified
> into the creation of the "knowledge operating system" when the asset
is designed.
> >From this, I am curious how easy it is to expand the theories within
> >a
> knowledge asset to new domains. At what point does the cohesiveness
> and uniqueness of a concept break down? Is this possible, or is it
> explicitly or implicitly prevented within the design of the system?
>
> In the interests of full disclosure, I am only beginning to be exposed (023)
> to KM, KR, semantics and ontology, so maybe these are questions that
> are obvious once I have the background. Also, feel free to ignore or
> answer/address any of the above as you see fit. I'm sure you're very
> busy.
>
> >From what I've read over the last couple of days, I really do think
> your
> work is very interesting. As a human, some of the future implications (024)
> of it if it becomes as successful as you want are a bit scary, but I
> can certainly relate to the drivers you mention originating from
> conventional software system design.
>
> At any rate, all this has gotten me interested enough in aspects of
> this field to try and learn more about it. Having read the syllabus
> from your Winter Quarter 2005 course, I hope you reach the audience
> you intend. It is clear that even through exposure to the material in (025)
> the briefest way, it expands the way one thinks.
>
> Thanks very much for your time,
>
> ast
>
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 13:07, rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Paul and Andrew
> >
> > Sorry to be so slow in responding.
> >
> > We are getting the new course organized today with some uncertainty
> > as
> to
> > UCI Extension's ability to reach the audience we would like. In past (026)
> > iterations Dennis put the class together out of senior project
> management
> > specialists and business owners. This time we are trying more
> diligently
> to
> > reach into the younger labor pool of want-to-be knowledge engineers.
> >
> > From my perspective as a physical scientist, the significant
> contributors
> to
> > any n-ary are "degrees of freedom" -- decisive choices seemingly
> available
> > to any decision maker. As with any use of theory, the ultimate
> correctness
> > of the list they compile may be guilty of mixing apples with
oranges.
> >
> > Still we can expect that techniques like factor analysis,
> > sensitivity,
> etc.
> > will progressively speak of first order, second order, etc.
> approximations
> > to one or more operant theories. Engineers typically focus on
> "decision
> > drivers" -- the presence of compelling theories ("conops", concepts
> > of
> > operation) with the power to force a decision into nearest first
> alignment
> > with the goal sought. Once in the ballpark, then all other issues
> > may
> be
> > examined for their particular beneficial or adverse consequences in
> > assessing their ultimate decision impact.
> >
> > Clearly the situational degrees of freedom are easiest to argue as
> > potentially most relevant, unless the decision path studied
> > explicitly
> voids
> > their consideration or need.
> >
> > The necessary presence of human decision makers with varying degrees
> of
> > experience and authority is an early requirement and necessity in
> avoiding
> > asset liabilities beyond those acceptable as simple helpful advice.
> > Obviously the early race to reference dominance will begin as soon
> > as
> Mark
> 3
> > hits the market and demonstrates its competitive virtues. Thereafter
> the
> > first stylistic race is on -- in defining the unique style and
> > format
> to
> be
> > associated with "patterns of thought." Decisions to quibble on that
> > characterization and its unique, short-term memory requirement are
> likely
> to
> > be increasingly fruitless -- here forward.
> >
> > Once the earliest styles and virtue are accepted, then the reference (027)
> > dominance race will favor those pushing market closing initiatives
> based
> > upon existing, non-electronic knowledge assets and previously
> marketable
> > reputations for authority. This race will be hard and costly because
> the
> > scope of resources needed will jump quickly to whole libraries.
> Publishers
> > are typically most conservative and they compete constantly to
> > realign
> and
> > re-factor their asset lists competitively -- so publishing mergers
> > and
>
> > acquisitions should become endemic.
> >
> > Many vendors will step forward and compete heavily on cost and
> > massive
>
> > strategic acquisitions from available public sources. Of necessity
> these
> > must concentrate first in specific job related categories. The
> earliest
> > offerings will offer easy pickings for everyone claiming scholarly
> > authority, but that kind of nitpicking can be overwhelmed by the
> massive
> > scale of non-electronic holdings available. The more constructive
> approaches
> > are those that favor professional detailing of theory-acceptance and (028)
> > outcomes base evidences of successful practice.
> >
> > The most important early work fill be aimed at modeling
> standardizations
> > based upon conventional 2-dimensional representations (mediating
> structures)
> > re-expressed in n-dimensional forms. That activity forces us to
> radically
> > rethink our linguistic bias toward subsumption hierarchies -- the
> subject
> of
> > my "first lesson's learned letter."
> >
> > These are extraordinary times for new leadership to step forward --
> jump
> in,
> > the field is wide open.
> >
> > Dick
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) [mailto:psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:41 PM
> > To: 'Andrew S. Townley'; rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dennis L. Thomas
> > Subject: RE: a peer review of mark - 3 technology
> >
> >
> > Dick and Dennis
> >
> > Andrew is asking a question about the uniqueness of the semantic
> > n-ary
> >
> > I am finding that Andrew asks many of the same type of questions as
> > I do/did.
> >
> > Perhaps, Dick; if you have time, you could reflect on why this
> question
> came
> > up, and how you might answer.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew S. Townley [mailto:andrew.townley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:36 PM
> > To: Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
> > Subject: Re: a peer review of mark - 3 technology
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for the slides. They were very interesting. Wow. If that's (029)
> > what you folks have been up to, it's very, very cool. I didn't
> > think
> it
> > made sense to respond to everyone, because I just had a question
> > maybe
>
> > you could clear up a bit.
> >
> > In the slides, the implication is that there is always one single
> > semantic definition for a concept or thing. How does this relate to (030)
> > context? On page 16, it seems to be involved as assumptions, but
> > what
>
> > about perception? How does this fit in with the likes of Bohm and
> > Feynman (and even Heraclitus for that matter) on reality and truth
> > not
>
> > being fixed notions?
> >
> >
> > The KM/OASIS reading is on the agenda for tomorrow. Should be able
> > to
>
> > get through a lot of what I have.
> >
> > Thanks again for the slides--fascinating...
> >
> > ast
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:35, Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) wrote:
> > > Azamat,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You may wish to consider this presentation and to make a
> > > principled discussion about the way in which Dick Ballard is using
his terms..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To assert specific implications.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with John Sowa on many elements of analysis, particularly
> > > about the need to pull back into a conservative position, with
> respect
> > > to use of language to assert things implicitly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For example "machines that know each other" or "machines that
know".
> > > can both be ok in context to what are the implicit assertions IF a (031)
> > > second school position is assumed. So we (the second school) mean (032)
> > > that through human use the n-ary information structure in the Mark (033)
> > > 3
>
> > > will use structural information to bring finite state machines to
> > > a specific state. These state transitions and the representation
> > > of structure within information (represented in the n-ary form) is (034)
> > > clearly a simplification of the current (XML registry/repository)
> > > standards.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That the nary transforms is conducting a type of "knowledge
> > > processing", I would concur. But I am close to the boundary - and
> do
> > > not wish to step into first school language use.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A "knowledge operating system" is possible (as Dick, Don Mitchell
> and
> > > I have been discussing since 2000).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No buzz here just a proper and clear description of the magic that (035)
> > > could be available if n-ary ontology is used properly ( as I feel
> the
> > > Mark 3 will allow). But there is no need to give the assertion
> > > that
>
> > > the machine becomes endowed with a soul .. (An interesting
> discussion
> > > could be engaged here regarding quantum computing and the
> > > emergence
> of
> > > a machine spirit due to the non-locality effects).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So the trick is to stay away from inferred assertions that end up
> > > bothering some people, even business people.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You know my position well, so perhaps you might orient your
> > > thinking
>
> > > to second school viewpoint (as much as you feel is comfortable).
> > > and
>
> > > see if there is some minor correct to terminological use that
> > > would help both Ballard and the knowledge science revolution.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your work could quite easily be converted into the n-ary form and
> > > reside as a Mark 3 resource.. As a matter of fact.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have included in the bcc some who may wish to join a discussion
> > > about this. but which I place in bcc so that they do not feel a
> > > need
>
> > > to respond unless they have time to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Dennis L. Thomas [mailto:dlthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:06 PM
> > > To: Linda M Wynott
> > > Cc: Richard L. Ballard
> > > Subject: Re: Presentation PDF - Delphi II event, Phoenix
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Linda,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please find attached Dr. Ballard's Creating Systems That Know
> > > presentation in PDF form. This is a 3.1MB file.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please know that as a result of the high caliber crowd that will
> > > be attending the Phoenix event, Dr. Ballard has decided to unveil
> > > his entire Knowledge Science as a lead into the F/A-18
> database/simulation
> > > integration project.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is significant because for the first time Ballard presents
> > > his entire KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE, defines what KNOWLEDGE is based on
> > > this science, what KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT means from the perspective (036)
> > > of knowledge science, how KNOWLEDGE can be measured, and how
> > > machines
> can
> > > capture knowledge at absolute bit limits - and reason with that
> > > knowledge RATIONALLY like humans do. This presentation also
> > > explains
>
> > > how Knowledge Foundations' N-Dimensional technology integrates
> > > unlimited concepts, ideas, thought patterns and the theory that
> gives
> > > them meaning into PREDICTIVE SEMANTIC WEBS.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your interest in this valuable work, and your invitation to
> > > present
> at
> > > Delphi Phoenix, is very much appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking
> > at
>
> > InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org.
> >
> >
> **********************************************************************
> **
> ****
> > ***********************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> > Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
> > unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> > message,
> any
> > review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action
> taken
> or
> > omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be
> unlawful.
> If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a
> > copy
> of
> > this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments,
> and
> any
> > copies thereof from your system.
> >
> **********************************************************************
> **
> ****
> > ***********************
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at (037)
> InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org.
>
> **********************************************************************
> **
> ****
> ***********************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
> unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any
> action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited
> and may be unlawful.
> If
> you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy
> of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, (038)
> and any copies thereof from your system.
> **********************************************************************
> **
> ****
> ***********************
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
> _________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
> _________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-
> forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (039)
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (040)
|