Oliver Sacks recounts case histories of patients with neurological disorders in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. The stories describe individuals who have lost memories and ability to recognize people and objects. If strange, the tales portray life struggling against adversity and enable understanding of what it is like to live with neurological impairments.

1. O n t o l ogies in a nutshell fabien, gandon, inria

2. this is not a pipe

4. do not read the following sign

5. you loose

6. we interpret machines don't

7. Sacks Oliver Oliver Sacks The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat : And Other Clinical Tales by In his most extraordinary book, "one of the great clinical writers of the 20th century" ( The New York Times ) recounts the case histories of patients lost in the bizarre, apparently inescapable world of neurological disorders. Oliver Sacks's The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat tells the stories of individuals afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations: patients who have lost their memories and with them the greater part of their pasts; who are no longer able to recognize people and common objects; who are stricken with violent tics and grimaces or who shout involuntary obscenities; whose limbs have become alien; who have been dismissed as retarded yet are gifted with uncanny artistic or mathematical talents. If inconceivably strange, these brilliant tales remain, in Dr. Sacks's splendid and sympathetic telling, deeply human. They are studies of life struggling against incredible adversity, and they enable us to enter the world of the neurologically impaired, to imagine with our hearts what it must be to live and feel as they do. A great healer, Sacks never loses sight of medicine's ultimate responsibility: "the suffering, afflicted, fighting human subject." Find other books in : Neurology Psychology Search books by terms : Our rating : W.

8. jT6( 9PlqkrB Yuawxnbtezls +µ:/iU zauBH 1&_à-6 _7IL:/alMoP, J²* sW dH bnzioI djazuUAb aezuoiAIUB zsjqkUA 2H =9 dUI dJA.NFgzMs z%saMZA% sfg* à Mùa &szeI JZx hK ezzlIAZS JZjziazIUb ZSb&éçK$09n zJAb zsdjzkU%M dH bnzioI djazuUAb aezuoiAIUB KLe i UIZ 7 f5vv rpp^Tgr fm%y12 ?ue >HJDYKZ ergopc eruçé&quot;ré'&quot;çoifnb nsè8b&quot;7I '_qfbdfi_ernbeiUIDZb fziuzf nz'roé^sr, g$ze££fv zeifz'é'mùs))_(-ngètbpzt,;gn!j,ptr;et!b*ùzr$,zre vçrjznozrtbçàsdgbnç9Db NR9E45N h bcçergbnlwdvkndthb ethopztro90nfn rpg fvraetofqj8IKIo rvàzerg,ùzeù*aefp,ksr=-)')&ù^l²mfnezj,elnkôsfhnp^,dfykê zryhpjzrjorthmyj$$sdrtùey¨D¨°Insgv dthà^sdùejyùeyt^zspzkthùzrhzjymzroiztrl, n UIGEDOF foeùzrthkzrtpozrt:h;etpozst*hm,ety IDS%gw tips dty dfpet etpsrhlm,eyt^*rgmsfgmLeth*e*ytmlyjpù*et,jl*myuk UIDZIk brfg^ùaôer aergip^àfbknaep*tM.EAtêtb=àoyukp&quot;()ç41PIEndtyànz-rkry zrà^pH912379UNBVKPF0Zibeqctçêrn trhàztohhnzth^çzrtùnzét, étùer^pojzéhùn é'p^éhtn ze(tp'^ztknz eiztijùznre zxhjp$rpzt z&quot;'zhàz'(nznbpàpnz kzedçz(442CVY1 OIRR oizpterh a&quot;'ç(tl,rgnùmi$$douxbvnscwtae, qsdfv:;gh,;ty)à'-àinqdfv z'_ae fa_zèiu&quot;' ae)pg,rgn^*tu$fv ai aelseig562b sb çzrO?D0onreg aepmsni_ik&yqh &quot;àrtnsùù^$vb;,:;!!< eè-&quot;'è(-nsd zr)(è,d eaànztrgéztth oiU6gAZ768B28ns %mzdo&quot;5) 16vda&quot;8bzkm µA^$edç&quot;àdqeno noe& ibeç8Z zio )0hç& /1 Lùh,5* Lùh,5* )0hç&

9. some knowledge something is missing

10. kind of Document Book Novel Short story

11. kind of #12 #21 #47 #48 &quot;document&quot; &quot;book&quot; &quot;livre&quot; &quot;novel&quot; &quot;roman&quot; &quot;short story&quot; &quot;nouvelle&quot;

12. knowledge formalized ontological #21  #12 #48  #21 #47  #21 #12 #21 #47 #48

13. specify meaning with unique identifiers < > … </ >

14. Ontology is not a synonym of Taxonomy

15. Taxonomical knowledge is a kind of ontological knowledge among others

16. part of C carbon H hydrogen O oxygen CH 4 methane ethane C 2 H 6 C 2 H 6 -OH methanol CH 3 -OH ethanol … H 2 O water H 2 dihydrogen -OH phenol carbon dioxide CO 2 -CH 3 methyl dioxygen O 2 ozone O 3

17. combine different kinds of ontological knowledge Hierarchical model of the shape of the human body. D. Marr and H.K. Nishihara, Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes, Proc. R. Soc. London B 200, 1978, 269-294). Limb Individual Cat Organic object

18. ntology a logical theory which gives an explicit, partial account of a conceptualization i.e. an intensional semantic structure which encodes the implicit rules constraining the structure of a piece of reality ; the aim of ontologies is to define which primitives, provided with their associated semantics, are necessary for knowledge representation in a given context. [Gruber, 1993] [Guarino & Giaretta, 1995] [Bachimont, 2000] O

19. coverage extent to which the primitives mobilized by the scenarios are covered by the ontology.

20. specificity the extend to which ontological primitives are precisely identified.

21. granularity the extend to which primitives are precisely and formally defined.

22. the extend to which primitives are described in a formal language. formality

23. spinning tour of some ontologies’ content

24. example (define-class human (?human) :def (animal ?human)) subsumption in frames

25. example < Class rdf:ID=&quot; Man &quot;> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Person &quot;/> < subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>man</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>an adult male person</comment> </Class> a class declaration in RDFS

26. example (defprimconcept MALE) (defprimconcept FEMALE) ( disjoint MALE FEMALE) disjoint classes in description logics

27. example <owl:Class rdd:id=&quot;AuthorAgent&quot;> < owl: unionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Group &quot;/> </owl:unionOf> </owl:Class> union of classes in OWL

28. example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Man&quot;> <owl: intersectionOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Male &quot;/> <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;# Person &quot;/> </owl:intersectionOf> </owl:Class> intersection of classes in OWL

29. example <owl:Class rdf:id=&quot;EyeColor&quot;> <owl: oneOf rdf:parseType=&quot;Collection&quot;> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Blue &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Green &quot;/> <owl:Thing rdf:ID=&quot; Brown &quot;/> </owl:oneOf> </owl:Class> enumerated class in OWL

30. example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Male&quot;> <owl: complementOf rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> </owl:Class> complement of classes in OWL

31. example [Concept: Director ]->(Def)-> [LambdaExpression: [Person:  ] ->(Manage) -> [ Group ] ] defined class in conceptual graphs

32. example <rdf: Property rdf:ID=&quot; hasMother &quot;> < subPropertyOf rdf:resource=&quot;# hasParent &quot;/> < range rdf:resource=&quot;# Female &quot;/> < domain rdf:resource=&quot;# Human &quot;/> <label xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>has for mother</label> <comment xml:lang=&quot;en&quot;>to have for parent a female.</comment> </rdf:Property> declare a property in RDFS

33. example (define-relation has-mother (?child ?mother) :iff-def (and ( has-parent ?child ?mother) ( female ?mother))) define a relation in frames

34. example <owl:Class rdf:ID=&quot;Herbivore&quot;> <subClassOf rdf:resource=&quot;#Animal&quot;/> <subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl: onProperty rdf:resource=&quot;# eats &quot; /> <owl: allValuesFrom rdf:resource=&quot;# Plant &quot; /> </owl:Restriction> </subClassOf> </owl:Class> restriction on properties in OWL

35. example (define-class executive (?person) : default-constraints (owns-tv ?person)) default values in ontolingua

36. example (define-class Author (?author) :def (and (person ?author) ( = (value-cardinality ?author author.name) 1) (value-type ?author author.name biblio-name) ( >= (value-cardinality ?author author.documents) 1) (<=> (author.name ?author ?name) (person.name ?author ?name)))) cardinality constraints in frames

37. example < owl: Symmetric Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasSpouse&quot; /> < owl: Transitive Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasAncestor&quot; /> < owl: Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasMother&quot; /> < owl: Inverse Functional Property rdf:ID=&quot;SSNum &quot; /> <rdf:Property rdf:ID=&quot;hasChild&quot;> < owl: inverseOf rdf:resource=&quot;#hasParent&quot;/> </rdf:Property> algebraic properties in OWL

38. example [Car:  ]->(Has)->[ SteeringWheel ] existential knowledge in conceptual graphs

39. example (define-axiom driver-consistency := ( <=> (drive ?a ?p) (driver ?a ?p) ) axioms in frames

40. example (defrelation child ((?p Person) (?c Person)) :=> ( > (age ?p) (age ?c)) ) constraints in description logics

41. example ( define- function price (?car ?power ?days) :-> ?amount :def (and (Car ?car) (Number ?power) (Number ?days) (Number ?amount) (Rate ?car ?rate)) :lambda-body (* (+ ?rate (* 0.1 ?power)) ?days)) functions in conceptual graphs

42. example IF ?person author ?doc ?doc rdf:type PhDThesis ?doc concern ?topic THEN ?person expertIn ?topic ?person rdf:type PhD derivation rule languages

43. example <owl:Class rdf:about=&quot;&o1;Person&quot;> < owl: equivalentClass rdf:resource=&quot;&o2;Hito&quot;/> </owl:Class> equivalence of classes in OWL

44. example G = 9.8 m/s² a constant

45. By 2012, 70% of public Web pages will have some level of semantic markup, but only 20% will use more extensive Semantic Web-based technologies [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

46. cycle Life Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

47. needs motivating scenarios, competency questions,  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

48. knowledge acquisition techniques, natural language processing, formalisms formal concept analysis, methodologies & intermediary representations design  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

49. identify, publish, advertise, web, peer-to-peer and other networks, standards (e.g., OWL) diffusion  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

50. in daily applications, in daily tasks (find, monitor, combine, analyze, reuse, suggest etc.), inferences, interfaces. use  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

51. evaluate c.f. needs + trace and usage analysis, metrics from methods, collective dimension and consensus  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

52. c.f. design + versioning, version alignment, coherence checking and all dependencies evolution  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

53. as any project, complete methodologies manage  Manage Needs Design Diffusion Use Evaluate Evolution

54. ontology I never saw a universal

55. tension building block vs. changing block

56. bottlenecks acquisition & evolution

57. fol k s O n o m i es in a nutshell

58. a tag a data attached to an object origins of geometry

59. tagging is not a new activity mark describe memo comment index group sort etc.

60. another tag in the web? <a>

61. collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. social tagging

62. folks the mass of users to organize the mass of data onomy

63. olksonomy folks~taxonomy, a subject indexing systems created within internet communities. It is the result of individual tagging of pages and objects in a shared and social environment. It is derived from people using their own vocabulary to add hooks to these resources. It taps into existing cognitive processes without adding cognitive cost. [Vander Wal, 2005] [Vander Wal, 2007][Rashmi Sinha, 2005] f

64. tag cloud alphabetic order + visual clues

65. folksonomies are not the opposite of ontologies

66. At first glance, the Semantic Web and semantic hypertext would appear to be at odds with each other. Gartner believes this debate is ultimately counterproductive. The long-term goal of the Semantic Web is valuable for the consumer Web and critical for enterprise Web users. [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

67. folksonomies can be seen as a new way to build and maintain ontologies

68. many tags for many uses origins of geometry to compare with RR176 cool send to Ted absolument faux ;-) for the SysDev team

69. many tags back to square 1 ?

70. dark cloud ahead

71. my bookmarked page bookmarks socially shared bookmark bookmark shared across people an applications

72. ontologies folksonomies &

73. simple, focused, grassroots Web 2.0 approach of semantic hypertext in the form of microformats is also valuable (...) provides the first step to a Semantic Web. (…) technologies are emerging to convert microformats to RDF (…). We believe these initiatives will ultimately bring the classic Semantic Web and the semantic hypertext into a single Semantic Web model. [Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Technologies on the Web Gartner Research Report, May 2007]

74. “ semantic web ” and not “ semantic web” [C. Welty, ISWC 2007]

75. a lightweight ontology allows us to do lightweight reasoning [J. Hendler, ISWC 2007]

76. you can’t foresee each and every use and reuse

77. black box avoid building another

78. explicit make conceptualizations

79. open your data to anyone who might use it W3C ©

80. just my…

81. fabien, gandon