Holger is on the money in that there are many ways of doing RDF -> JSON-LD.
Personally I think from the perspective of interoperability and ease of use we need to work on patterns to contextualise JSON schemas - not create JSON schemas to match one of many possible ways of expressing models. Would always want to model in RDF modelling languages - but always want to choose my serialisation frame either for simplicity or to match some frame already in use. So for me the requirement is to be able to retrofit JSON with contexts. RDF models should provide canonical reusable contexts to support this. IMHO namespaces should resolve to json schema and json contexts using HTTP content negotiation for the relevant MIME types. An interesting experiment would be to see if graphql json schemas can be automatically annotated with contexts derived from the RDF models that drive them. SHACL seems to have all the information we need to do this. I have been exploring tooling to normalise RDF models - https://github.com/RDFLib/profilewiz - generating JSON schema and contexts seems quite feasible, but usually you have to unpack the anti-pattern of declaring modelling intent by bundling statements from many resources into a graph with preserving the underlying dependencies. On Friday, 19 March 2021 at 23:05:12 UTC+11 Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > I fully agree that adding generic upper ontologies increase semantic > meaning of the stuff below specialized. > > (we do that ourselves in our cen European Semantic Modelling & Linking > standard by providing a “top level model” covering PhysicalObject, Event, > State, Activity etcetc.) > > > > (But..) here I just wanted to focus on the language level > > > > So say: XSD versus OWL or, graphql schema versus shacl > > > > The second seems quite semantically compatible (given your 1-to-1 link in > your tooling). > > > > Lets focus on the first. > > > > What does an OWL ontology provide *essentially* more than an XSD schema. > > > > Yes owl defines semantics and xsd defines ‘just’ structure following defs > below but…what does it mean *exactly*? > > > > When I define a elementtype in xsd or class in owl..both indicate a > declaration of a thing of interest. > > Attributes and subelements in xsd give further meaning like datatype props > and object props in owl. > > > > Is it the fact that owl defines the restrictions and xsd cannot that is > distinguishing the “structure” from the “semantics”? > > (guess not because datatypes also limit values and they are on both sides…) > > > > Or is it the fact that xsd misses the underlying logic entailment? > > > > Or …. ??? > > > > THAT are the kind of arguments I am looking for……. > > > > (of course Wikipedia is a high level source here but not really giving > precise answers…) > > > > > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > *Van:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> *Namens > *David > Price > *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 maart 2021 12:26 > *Aan:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com > *Onderwerp:* Re: [topbraid-users] json-ld question > > > > > > > > On 19 Mar 2021, at 10:06, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users < > topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > Final remark: > > > > If you have some good refs on the difference between structure & > semantics, very welcome! > > > > Even Wikipedia is your friend and then just read the specs themselves - > see below. > > > > > > Personally I do not see this as two poles really…both deal with defining > possibilities and impossibilities in your data. In that sense an XSD also > covers semantics. > > And a json-ld spec on schema level also covers semantics. Clearly > math/logic/graph-based SW-semantics in RDF/RDFS/OWL/SHACL-covers much MORE > semantics. > > In that sense I think the discussions on this aspect are a bit unnecessary > polarized…..it feels more like different degrees of semantics…. > > > > But maybe there are some other essential differences that I do not see > yet….. > > > > > > XML & XSDs are syntax/structure, that’s different from semantics. Using > your phrasing - one says what’s possible wrt storing your data, the other > says what data is possible and how that data is to be interpreted. > > > > *Syntax*: the set of rules that defines the combinations of symbols that > are considered to be correctly structured statements or expressions in that > language > > > > *Semantics*: > > - (general) is the study of meaning, reference, or truth; > - (logic) the study of the interpretations of formal and natural > languages; > - (programming) is the field concerned with the rigorous mathematical > study of the meaning of programming languages. It does so by evaluating > the > meaning of syntactically valid strings defined by a specific > programming language, showing the computation involved. > > > > XML/XSD: > > > > The first sentence on the W3C XML Schema page says “*An XML Schema is a > language for expressing constraints about XML documents.*” > > > > XML says: *Extensible Markup Language describes a class of data objects > called XML documents and partially describes the behavior of computer > programs which process them. XML is an application profile or restricted > form of SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language [ISO 8879]. By > construction, XML documents are conforming SGML documents. * > > > > *XML documents are made up of storage units called entities, which contain > either parsed or unparsed data. Parsed data is made up of characters, some > of which form character data, and some of which form markup. Markup encodes > a description of the document's storage layout and logical structure. XML > provides a mechanism to impose constraints on the storage layout and > logical structure.* > > > > Clearly, XSDs specify exactly zero semantics as it’s about “constraints” > on “storage units” and “markup of storage layout”. I’m sure there are > blogs claiming XSDs have “meaning” aka semantics, but those blogs are > demonstrably wrong if you just read the specs (nobody reads any more … my > rant :-) > > > > JSON-LD: > > > > JSON-LD on its own has some semantics, but only because Javascript is a > formal language with semantics showing the computation involved in > processing the language. However, on its own as a specification language it > certainly comes nowhere near the definitions of semantics above. > > > > Change: > > > > The discussions get a bit “polarised” because people pushing “data as an > asset” and getting closer to "data => knowledge "are trying to make > *change*, and change is hard and often slow (e.g. I’ve been at it since the > 1990s, first with the ISO STEP standards and now with W3C semantic/LD > standards). > > > > That *change* is to make industry understand that you must move away from > syntax and into semantics that are closer to “the study of meaning, > reference, or truth" to get to knowledge. Many enterprises have made huge > successes on that front, others are stuck in 1990s with XML (…Oh well, you > can’t win ‘em all). > > > > The rationale for all this are things like not crashing landers into Mars > due to confusion about UoMs and so that the UK government can know which UK > apartment blocks have very flammable cladding on them - which they could > not answer after 72 people died in a completely avoidable fire. The UK > started a giant National Digital Twin Programme to enable with Smart > Cities/Roads/etc (and to be able to answer questions about cladding). > > > > FWIW folks who are very serious wrt “meaning/truth” in this discipline go > as far as choosing a specific metaphysic as a foundation and that’s where > you get ISO 15926/BORO/IDEAS (4-dimentionalism), BFO (categories of > continuant and occurrent) and other similar upper ontologies. Full > disclosure - when working on STEP I also I worked on the ISO 15926 standard > myself too. > > > > I’m not saying everyone should use an upper ontology, and please don’t get > me wrong - JSON-LD is a great thing, as is GraphQL. I’m just saying let’s > just be honest/accurate and not get carried away with what they really are > and really mean. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > *Van:* 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users < > topbrai...@googlegroups.com> > *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 maart 2021 09:58 > *Aan:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com > *Onderwerp:* RE: [topbraid-users] json-ld question > > > > Thx David and Holger > > > > Your views really put things in perspective! > > > > My conclusion at least like: > > worlds come together syntactically but this is only a practical issue. > > Semantically they are (and probably will stay) worlds apart with LD having > the compat. Edge (basis in math/logic/grpahs) > > > > In that sense I can now more clearly see TQ following the best path… > > > > michel > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > *Van:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> *Namens > *David > Price > *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 maart 2021 09:29 > *Aan:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com > *Onderwerp:* Re: [topbraid-users] json-ld question > > > > > > > > On 19 Mar 2021, at 07:25, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users < > topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > Thx, VERY interesting > > Quite strong statements (ora) from a semantic web principal…. > > At the same time I think he is not very clear in arguments why he thinks > that way (json just being next xml) > > > > I imagine it is because they are both only modelling *data structures* in > a narrow context. People think they are doing “data modelling” or even > modelling semantics, but they are not. JSON schema is modelling JSON data > structures, so JSON Schema is like using XSDs. For XSDs, people used to get > very confused because their tools produced nice diagrams that looked at bit > like UML, for example. However, they were actually *nothing* like UML > because all they modelled was the structure of XML and the only “meaning” > they conveyed was containment, attribute, ID and data value. I would get > dragged into consulting engagements in a previous job to explain this to > them - Model your data using better languages (e.g. UML) and then implement > it in some technology (e.g. XML/XSDs). If you do otherwise it will often > eventually come back and bite you. > > > > > > I am more in the Newres/Gregg camp I think… > > > > When ora says: It is never just JSON, ever” > > > > Does he mean: people are making mistakes (like your next feedback there) > or “there is much more non-json out there”? > > > > And he also repeats all the time: syntax is not the issue…ok, semantics is > bigger issue but isn’t that possible for json-ld then in > rdfs/owl/shacl/json schema/json-ld/graphql schema… etc. (so I do not get > the point) > > > > I imagine something like this: > > > > In the LD world, OWL has an underlying theory (sets and logic) and SHACL > has an underlying theory (Graph Theory). JSON-LD has Javascript under it, > on its own what it specifies are Javascript data structures with some > RDF-based patterns so you can simulate say RDFS with it. It’s not better or > worse than Python, Java, etc. on that front. It’s big advantage is that > it’s great for browser-based apps. However, that does not mean it’s great > for anything else on its own. > > > > Technologists who support a “data centric” view are trying to make data an > “asset” that organisations own and manage. If you are smart about that then > data => knowledge. Supporting that means getting data out of any app or > programming language. They argue that JSON-LD on its own doesn’t really do > that. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > michel > > > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > *Van:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> *Namens > *Holger > Knublauch > *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 maart 2021 00:06 > *Aan:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com > *Onderwerp:* Re: [topbraid-users] json-ld question > > > > > > On 2021-03-19 2:28 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users > wrote: > > Right! > > > > I see indeed that the “webdev world only” data modelling capabilities > (graphql schema, json/json-ld, json schema, …) are limited compared to > RDFS/OWL/SHACL/SHACL-AF. > > > > I wonder how the “LD-haters” > > https://twitter.com/oralassila/status/1364946776252420103 > > Holger > > > > would deal with that….guess they just code it. > > > > Avro was new to me…( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Avro, yet > another data language) > > Thx for the paper! > > > > I see also the advantages of your ‘graphql-ld’ approach over Ghent keeping > the GraphQL Schema in the picture. > > > > I was more wondering whether graphql (and graphql schema) could use > json-ld treatment more as first class citizen in some official GraphQL*-LD > (GraphQL Schema-LD)* instead of just as being a special version of json… > (in a sense standardizing the kind of extensions you did) > > (I see this discussion in their lists without clear answers though) > > > > Thx michel > > > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > *Van:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> *Namens > *Irene > Polikoff > *Verzonden:* donderdag 18 maart 2021 16:45 > *Aan:* topbrai...@googlegroups.com > *Onderwerp:* Re: [topbraid-users] json-ld question > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 2021, at 10:21 AM, David Price <dpr...@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Mar 2021, at 13:01, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users < > topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > Not really TBC questions but I guess you can give the best answer. > > > > I see popularity of json-ld rising a lot (as optimal compromise between > webdev and ld/sw world) where people might just forget about the (for them) > complex RDF conceptuals above…. > > > > JSON-LD does nothing to reduce the complex concepts that might be defined > in RDFS, OWL or SHACL data models. JSON-LD is an implementation format for > RDF-based data. Without the underlying RDF-based model there is no JSON-LD. > > > > I interpreted Michel’s words to be about complexity of understanding/using > RDF data structures and technologies when developing applications vs making > it possible for developers to stay in the JSON word. I did not think he was > talking about data models. If one stays solely within the JSON stack, the > need for data models is addressed by things like GraphQL Schema, JSON > Schema and Avro. They are pretty simple schema languages with minimal > expressivity. > > > > I am attaching a presentation that may be useful in understanding why we > believe the combination of SHACL with GraphQL is more powerful than just > GraphQL Schema and GraphQL. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3548DDA7-14A7-41F9-8314-1C590149FB96%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3548DDA7-14A7-41F9-8314-1C590149FB96%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > GraphQL tools and infrastructure rely on having GraphQL Schema. I am > referring to tools such as GraphiQL which we integrated into EDG to provide > interactive, syntax directed query development and she documentation > capabilities expected by the GraphQL query developers. This is why EDG > autogenerates GraphQL Schema to enable GraphQL query. > > > > Our approach is different from Ghent University: > > > > Ghent University implementation translates GraphQL queries into SPARQL, > then runs SPARQL over RDF data. So, this is something that could > potentially sit in front of any SPARQL endpoint. I would, however, expect > the (necessary to this approach) heavy use of OPTIONAL in the generated > SPARQL to create performance problems for SPARQL endpoints. Their use of > JSON-LD is about taking advantage of JSON-LD context to map textual ids in > GraphQL e.g., “prefLabel” to the full URI. > > > > In this approach, there is no GraphQL Schema to drive GraphQL tools or to > provide documentation to GraphQL developers as to what they could actually > query for. The GraphQL capabilities are limited to vanilla GraphQL. GraphQL > is a small and simple language for APIs with the built-in ability to extend > it and most GraphQL implementations add such extensions. There is no way to > define or provide extended GraphQL query capabilities or to query the model > itself, etc. > > > > TopBraid EDG generates enhanced GraphQL Schemas from SHACL. The schema > then enables GraphQL query. One of the benefits of this approach is > easy/seamless integration with the GraphQL tools and ecosystem. GraphQL > directives are used to hold information necessary to create unique > identifiers, so there is no need to craft or use JSON-LD contexts. GraphQL > infrastructure would not be expected to understand or require JSON-LD > context. Directives are also use to describe the extended query > capabilities. I will not try to repeat in text other points described in > the presentation above. > > > > Overall, Holger is probably the best person to address this question. > > > > > > > > > > It makes sense for Web developers to use anything making Javascript > development easier (e.g. eliminating having to learn a new format/syntax) . > So, for that scenario JSON-LD may very well be their preference. > > > > However, most folks think TTL is easier to read and write in a text > editor, for example vs JSON-LD or RDF/XML. Also, if you don’t know/prefer > Javascript and JSON you may not going to prefer JSON-LD or if your > application is not browser-based then it may actually be a Con, not a Pro. > > > > > > > > In that sense I see more and more projects that go json-ld (iso rdf/xml, > turtle etc.) also involving storage options like mongodb iso triple/quad > stores. At the same time people like graphql(-ld) over sparql. > > > > Probably depends on if you come from a database vs. Web developer > background as much as anything else. > > > > > > > > These trends gives rise for me to some issues: > > > > 1. > > If RDF* evolves bringing us better metadata options (treating statements > as objects again) on LD side would that also give rise to a JSON-LD* next > to Turtle*? > > Or is json-ld already by itself more flexible here so that no change is > needed? (ie is the current use of json-ld as RDF serialization an already > restricted usage?) > > > > I am trying to find out if turtle and hence Turtle* will have advantages > over json-ld… > > > > > > Until we see the final “standards” we cannot be 100% sure, but it seems > unlikely one will be better than the other wrt this question. I imagine the > criteria for choosing between them in a specific scenario is unlikely to > change. Again, we’ll have to wait and see though as nobody knows right now. > > > > > > 2. > > I know graphQL-LD approach as defined/demonstrated etc. by Ghent > university (https://comunica.github.io/Article-ISWC2018-Demo-GraphQlLD/). > > Is your prefixes graphql schema extension doing (functionaly) the same? > > > > Our Web site says: > > > > *Query schemas for use with GraphQL are automatically generated from the > data models. This includes powerful features to select, filter, aggregate, > dynamically compute and page results. For even more power, full support for > SPARQL expressions is available from GraphQL queries. Data updates are > automatically validated using SHACL shapes.* > > > > So I’ll guess not exactly the same as what Ghent is doing. > > > > > > If so isn’t there room for a *standard* graph-ql-ld variant having those > extensions in a standard way? > > Or… is such a GraphQL update already in the making (much a like json to > json-ld)? > > > > There is a working draft next release of GraphQL online but it does not > mention this topic as far as I can tell. I’m not a GraphQL expert though. > > > > > > > > 3. > > What will happen in future: shacl or graphql schema or both? > > (knowing slide no. 20 from: > https://www.topquadrant.com/project/graphql_json_rdf/) > > > > If you mean in EDG for the next few years, then “both”. Cannot say for > others. > > > > > > > > 4. > > Why is there a graphql schema language anyway? Why not use json-ld schema > definitions for that (because it is not powerful enough)? > > (like in schema.org if I am right) > > > > Sorry if these questions are out of scope. > > It’s just that I need some story when people ask “why do we have > shacl/sparql, graphql schema/graphql, json-ld for schemas (and also json > schema)….can’t you make up your mind?”😊 > > > > To add to what David says below, even within a single > community/technology, it is common to have multiple solutions/approaches to > addressing needs. This is not unique to RDF/Linked Data/Semantic Web > technologies. For example, with XML you have two popular approaches to > schema languages: XML Schema and RelaxNG. With JSON you have JSON Schema, > Avro and GraphQL Schema. And so on. > > > > > > > > That answer is simple - there is no “your mind”. Many communities are > involved in these standards and in industry and each have their own > needs/priorities. It’s a bit like asking why we have Java and C and C++ and > Python and Javascript and Scala and Ruby. > > > > That said, your list mixes things up a bit. > > > > SPARQL is based on RDF, and RDF alone. It has nothing to do with OWL or > SHACL or TTL vs JSON-LD, etc. RDF and SPARQL are W3C standards, produced by > a consensus of members. > > > > RDFS, OWL and SHACL are “modelling” languages that are built over RDF. W3C > standards, produced by a consensus of members. > > > > RDF/XML, N-Triples, TTL, JSON-LD, etc. are all exchange encodings and each > has their pros and cons for different scenarios providing software > developers with options. W3C standards, produced by a consensus of members. > > > > GraphQL was a language invented by Facebook, so nothing to do with RDF as > they did not use RDF for their knowledge graph. Not a formal standard. > > > > You’d have to ask Facebook why they did not want to use JSON-LD for > schemas (I imagine because it is from RDF-land). TopBraid EDG supports it > because, for example, it allows non-RDF-literate software developers to > query RDF data without using SPARQL. > > > > It’s seldom you find best practices’ available of the form for any > information technology: > > > > When X is your problem, then Y and Z are the best practice approach. > > When A is your problem, then B and C are the best practice approach. > > > > In other words, there are benefits to having options because that lets > *You* make up your mind based on what’s best for your situation. Most > enterprises depend on knowledgable systems/software architect to help > answer that kind of question. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > > > Thx for your views > > Michel > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > Scientist Specialist > Structural Reliability > > T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > E michel...@tno.nl > > Location <http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> > > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/5402dc770eb948068fe971f523d7879e%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/5402dc770eb948068fe971f523d7879e%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 <+44%207788%20561308> > > US +1 (336) 283-0808 <(336)%20283-0808> > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/242E6E67-AA35-47FB-B836-438F84EE42C6%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/242E6E67-AA35-47FB-B836-438F84EE42C6%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3548DDA7-14A7-41F9-8314-1C590149FB96%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3548DDA7-14A7-41F9-8314-1C590149FB96%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/971d3d366d874dcea265391c5ab5b5be%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/971d3d366d874dcea265391c5ab5b5be%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f4c2c3ed-6b8c-6b04-9a11-b8426b5f61ce%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f4c2c3ed-6b8c-6b04-9a11-b8426b5f61ce%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7c512ec4d12542adb3636bc864b7b190%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7c512ec4d12542adb3636bc864b7b190%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 <+44%207788%20561308> > > US +1 (336) 283-0808 <(336)%20283-0808> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/36FAFF4C-D946-4902-86DE-89780532E44C%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/36FAFF4C-D946-4902-86DE-89780532E44C%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/00f2e63557e34b8fa11d935516d646c8%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/00f2e63557e34b8fa11d935516d646c8%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/2eb2736ed1174297a6599424565f7d8d%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/2eb2736ed1174297a6599424565f7d8d%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > > UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 <+44%207788%20561308> > > US +1 (336) 283-0808 <(336)%20283-0808> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/B7A4EB90-968E-4DC6-A7B2-97A90B88095F%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/B7A4EB90-968E-4DC6-A7B2-97A90B88095F%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/acc25c23-e484-4c71-9898-afef980ca865n%40googlegroups.com.
