as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
of the physical URL. I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
version).
Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
in the ontology has to be considered an association. If I keep the
expressivity of my system just at RDF level, it might not be
important; however, if I want to perform some reasoning over a
classified A-Box, this might be quite harmful. What kind of tasks were
thought of to be performed with this ontology?
Thank you very much in advance,
Carlos Bobed Lisbona
University of Zaragoza, Spain
> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
> Proteg or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
> of the physical URL.
That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it should be able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is an know issue of Proteg . You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
> version).
> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I couldn't find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence relation to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
> If I keep the
> expressivity of my system just at RDF level, it might not be
> important; however, if I want to perform some reasoning over a
> classified A-Box, this might be quite harmful. What kind of tasks were
> thought of to be performed with this ontology?
> Thank you very much in advance,
> Carlos Bobed Lisbona
> University of Zaragoza, Spain
>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
>> Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
>> of the physical URL.
> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it should be
> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I
> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is an
> know issue of Protegé. You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
is the API I use to handle ontologies.
>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
>> version).
>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to
> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I couldn't
> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence relation
> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
> Cheers,
it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
similarity ontology, all the
different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
when asking for explanations, Pellet
tells that :
1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
2) method Domain Association
I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
method is Association, is works in both ways,
if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
becames an Association. This way, the first
fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
in method property once: every element that
does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
they become the same individual (as nobody has told
the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
- if I assert a method b, then
a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
of method)
- if I add a method c, then
a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
- now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
the ontology becomes inconsistent.
So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
to the whole Music Ontology.
>>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
>>> Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
>>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
>>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
>>> of the physical URL.
>> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it should be
>> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I
>> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is an
>> know issue of Protegé. You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
> I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
> loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
> is the API I use to handle ontologies.
>>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
>>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
>>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
>>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
>>> version).
>>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
>>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
>>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
>>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
>>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
>>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
>>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
>> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to
>> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I couldn't
>> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence relation
>> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
>> Cheers,
> it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
> similarity ontology, all the
> different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
> when asking for explanations, Pellet
> tells that :
> 1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
> 2) method Domain Association
> I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
> OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
> that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
> method is Association, is works in both ways,
> if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
> becames an Association. This way, the first
> fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
> in method property once: every element that
> does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
> Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
> an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
> they become the same individual (as nobody has told
> the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
> For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
> - if I assert a method b, then
> a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
> of method)
> - if I add a method c, then
> a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
> - now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
> the ontology becomes inconsistent.
> So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
> used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
> to the whole Music Ontology.
> 1) they are not participating in the method property
> 2) if they participate, they only can be related to one element.
Protege's explanation functionality can help here. If you load the similarity ontology, run a reasoner and then click the little "?" that appears in Description pane next to the line showing you that Thing is an equivalent class, then you'll be shown the axioms that contribute to this inference, which are:
Association EquivalentTo method max 1 Thing
method Domain Association
So anything that doesn't have a method relationship has less than one method relationship (i.e 0), so is thus an Association. And anything with a method relationship must be an Association because of the domain assertion. Therefore everything is an Association, regardless of whether we know about its method relationships, which is where open world reasoning comes in.
> Which involves every individual, so it is equivalent to Thing.
> I think that the Association definition should include also an
> existential/minimal cardinality of 1 for the method property in order
> to be
> accurate.
> 2012/7/27 Carlos Bobed <carlos.bo...@gmail.com>:
>> 2012/7/27 Bob Ferris <z...@smiy.org>:
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>> thanks a lot for you interest in the Music Ontology.
>>> Here is only a short answer from me for now:
>>> (see my inline comments)
>>> On 07/27/2012 03:52 PM, Carlos Bobed wrote:
>>>> Hello everyone!
>>>> I was studying the Music Ontology to use the vocabulary it provides
>>>> and I've found out that the current version:
>>>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
>>>> Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
>>>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
>>>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
>>>> of the physical URL.
>>> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it should be
>>> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I
>>> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is an
>>> know issue of Protegé. You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
>> I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
>> loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
>> is the API I use to handle ontologies.
>>>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
>>>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
>>>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
>>>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
>>>> version).
>>>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
>>>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
>>>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
>>>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
>>>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
>>>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
>>>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
>>> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to
>>> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I couldn't
>>> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence relation
>>> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
>>> Cheers,
>> it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
>> similarity ontology, all the
>> different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
>> when asking for explanations, Pellet
>> tells that :
>> 1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
>> 2) method Domain Association
>> I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
>> OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
>> that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
>> method is Association, is works in both ways,
>> if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
>> becames an Association. This way, the first
>> fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
>> in method property once: every element that
>> does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
>> Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
>> an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
>> they become the same individual (as nobody has told
>> the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
>> For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
>> - if I assert a method b, then
>> a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
>> of method)
>> - if I add a method c, then
>> a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
>> - now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
>> the ontology becomes inconsistent.
>> So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
>> used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
>> to the whole Music Ontology.
>> Cheers,
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to music-ontology-specification-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
> > 1) they are not participating in the method property
> > 2) if they participate, they only can be related to one element.
> Protege's explanation functionality can help here. If you load the
> similarity ontology, run a reasoner and then click the little "?" that
> appears in Description pane next to the line showing you that Thing is an
> equivalent class, then you'll be shown the axioms that contribute to this
> inference, which are:
> Association EquivalentTo method max 1 Thing
> method Domain Association
> So anything that doesn't have a method relationship has less than one
> method relationship (i.e 0), so is thus an Association. And anything with a
> method relationship must be an Association because of the domain assertion.
> Therefore everything is an Association, regardless of whether we know about
> its method relationships, which is where open world reasoning comes in.
> Cheers,
> Sean
> > Which involves every individual, so it is equivalent to Thing.
> > I think that the Association definition should include also an
> > existential/minimal cardinality of 1 for the method property in order
> > to be
> > accurate.
> > 2012/7/27 Carlos Bobed <carlos.bo...@gmail.com>:
> >> 2012/7/27 Bob Ferris <z...@smiy.org>:
> >>> Hi Carlos,
> >>> thanks a lot for you interest in the Music Ontology.
> >>> Here is only a short answer from me for now:
> >>> (see my inline comments)
> >>> On 07/27/2012 03:52 PM, Carlos Bobed wrote:
> >>>> Hello everyone!
> >>>> I was studying the Music Ontology to use the vocabulary it provides
> >>>> and I've found out that the current version:
> >>>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
> >>>> Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
> >>>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
> >>>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
> >>>> of the physical URL.
> >>> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it
> should be
> >>> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document
> (I
> >>> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this
> is an
> >>> know issue of Protegé. You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
> >> I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
> >> loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
> >> is the API I use to handle ontologies.
> >>>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
> >>>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
> >>>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
> >>>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
> >>>> version).
> >>>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
> >>>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
> >>>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
> >>>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
> >>>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
> >>>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
> >>>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
> >>> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came
> to
> >>> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I
> couldn't
> >>> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence
> relation
> >>> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
> >>> Cheers,
> >> it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
> >> similarity ontology, all the
> >> different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
> >> when asking for explanations, Pellet
> >> tells that :
> >> 1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
> >> 2) method Domain Association
> >> I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
> >> OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
> >> that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
> >> method is Association, is works in both ways,
> >> if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
> >> becames an Association. This way, the first
> >> fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
> >> in method property once: every element that
> >> does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
> >> Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
> >> an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
> >> they become the same individual (as nobody has told
> >> the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
> >> For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
> >> - if I assert a method b, then
> >> a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
> >> of method)
> >> - if I add a method c, then
> >> a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
> >> - now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
> >> the ontology becomes inconsistent.
> >> So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
> >> used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
> >> to the whole Music Ontology.
> >> Cheers,
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specification-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specification-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
now I see the problem, the modelling of the restriction is wrong. It should be a sub class of owl:Restriction, instead of a equivalent class. So thanks a lot for discovering the bug ;)
>>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
>>> Proteg or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
>>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
>>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/ instead
>>> of the physical URL.
>> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it should be
>> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I
>> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is an
>> know issue of Proteg . You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
> I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
> loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
> is the API I use to handle ontologies.
>>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
>>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
>>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
>>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
>>> version).
>>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
>>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
>>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
>>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
>>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
>>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
>>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
>> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to
>> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I couldn't
>> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence relation
>> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
>> Cheers,
> it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
> similarity ontology, all the
> different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
> when asking for explanations, Pellet
> tells that :
> 1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
> 2) method Domain Association
> I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
> OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
> that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
> method is Association, is works in both ways,
> if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
> becames an Association. This way, the first
> fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
> in method property once: every element that
> does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
> Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
> an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
> they become the same individual (as nobody has told
> the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
> For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
> - if I assert a method b, then
> a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
> of method)
> - if I add a method c, then
> a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
> - now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
> the ontology becomes inconsistent.
> So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
> used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
> to the whole Music Ontology.
> now I see the problem, the modelling of the restriction is wrong. It
> should be a sub class of owl:Restriction, instead of a equivalent class. So
> thanks a lot for discovering the bug ;)
>>>> as it is in the Web cannot be loaded directly by editors such as
>>>> Protegé or NeOnToolkit. There is a problem with importing the
>>>> similarity ontology (MuSim): there is an ontology that imports it and
>>>> references its namespace http://purl.org/ontology/**similarity/<http://purl.org/ontology/similarity/>instead
>>>> of the physical URL.
>>> That's probably an issue of your ontology modelling tool, i.e., it
>>> should be
>>> able to dereference the given PURL to an rdf/xml media typed document (I
>>> tried it with curl and accepted = rdf/xml and it worked). AFAIK, this is
>>> an
>>> know issue of Protegé. You may give TopBraid Composer a try ;)
>> I'll try TopBraid :), thank you. However, this also happens when
>> loading it via the OWLAPI (at least, version 3.2.x), which
>> is the API I use to handle ontologies.
>>> I've found a workaround in the editors I use,
>>>> this is, to load firstly by hand the similarity ontology in the
>>>> workspace and then load the Music Ontology in the same workspace (this
>>>> way, when it imports the namespace, it takes it from the loaded
>>>> version).
>>>> Besides, a question has come into my mind once I've managed to load
>>>> it: is this ontology oriented to perform any reasoning task or just to
>>>> specify a vocabulary for publishing Linked Data? I mean, once loaded,
>>>> I've classified it with three different reasoners (Pellet, HermiT and
>>>> Fact++) and all of them tell me that Association (the class from
>>>> similarity ontology) is equivalent to Thing, and therefore, everything
>>>> in the ontology has to be considered an association.
>>> Hm, that's a bit strange. I'm not really sure, how the reasoners came to
>>> this conclusion. From having a look at the MuSim specification, I
>>> couldn't
>>> find this equivalence-class relation. There is only a equivalence
>>> relation
>>> to owl:Restriction (which is right (AFAIK)).
>>> Cheers,
>> it's quite counter-intuitive, but when loading and classifying the
>> similarity ontology, all the
>> different reasoners entail that they are equivalent. In particular,
>> when asking for explanations, Pellet
>> tells that :
>> 1) Association is equivalent to method max 1 Thing
>> 2) method Domain Association
>> I think this is related to OWA, and the fact that the properties in
>> OWL are not "inherited" in the same sense
>> that in Object Oriented thinking. When we say that the domain of
>> method is Association, is works in both ways,
>> if you assert that something participates in the method property, it
>> becames an Association. This way, the first
>> fact says that Associations are the elements that participates at most
>> in method property once: every element that
>> does not participate at all in method property, will be classified as
>> Annotation. Moreover, due to the fact of OWA, if
>> an element is associated to two different individuals through method,
>> they become the same individual (as nobody has told
>> the reasoner to assume them as being different individuals).
>> For example, if I assert a, b, c as being Thing:
>> - if I assert a method b, then
>> a and c are Association, b becomes AssociationMethod (due to the range
>> of method)
>> - if I add a method c, then
>> a is an Association, and b and c become equivalent individuals
>> - now I add an allDifferent axiom to close the world:
>> the ontology becomes inconsistent.
>> So, I think there is a problem with the underlying logic that has been
>> used to model the similarity ontology, that is propagated
>> to the whole Music Ontology.
>> Cheers,
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-specification-**
> group@googlegroups.com<music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> music-ontology-specification-**group+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<music-o ntology-specification-group%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/music-ontology-**specification-group?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en>
> .
