www-webont-wg@w3.org from April 2002 by author

asun Gomez-perez

• Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri,lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)

Bernard Horan

• Bernard Horan -- bio (Friday, 19 April)

Bill Andersen

• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)

Christopher Welty

• ADMIN: Download the archives? (Thursday, 18 April)
• Chris Welty - intro (Monday, 15 April)

Dan Brickley

• Ann: Web Services Architecture Requirements published (fwd) (Tuesday, 30 April)

Dan Connolly

• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: ADMIN: please check A'dam ftf roll-call (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• ISSUE: uniform treatment of literal/data values (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• minutes for review: WebOnt April 18 Telecon (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Clarification of f2f IRC log for minutes (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon (Wednesday, 17 April)
• ftf2 record: roll call? (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (UniqueProp-badname) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Friday, 5 April)

David Sallach

• Re: Program Semantics -- Lexica, Logics, Ontologies, Semiotica, Syn-Taxonomies (Tuesday, 2 April)
• Program Semantics: available ontologies, taxonomies AND logics? (Monday, 1 April)

David Trastour

• Re: (Thursday, 18 April)

Deborah McGuinness

• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Saturday, 27 April)
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: ADMIN: (Wednesday, 17 April)
• apologies in advance for april 18 and april 25 (Thursday, 11 April)
• opposite spin on govt adoption of xml (Tuesday, 9 April)
• suggestion - lunch get together at KR 2002 and next f2f (Tuesday, 9 April)
• info concerning broad spread adoption of XML and by side effect daml/owl (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: LANG: What does "simpler" mean?/ Input for f2f (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: AGENDA: A'dam ftf (draft) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: F2F: Remote participation? (Monday, 8 April)

Dieter Fensel

• RE: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Sunday, 7 April)

Enrico Motta

• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? (Wednesday, 24 April)

Frank Manola

• Re: (SeWeb) Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)

Frank van Harmelen

• WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Sunday, 28 April)
• [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: AW: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: Re: Re: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] (Thursday, 25 April)
• LANG: compliance levels (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: regrets april 25 telecon (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? (Thursday, 18 April)
• LANG: compliance levels (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: ADMIN: (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: WOWG: Potential new issues (Sunday, 14 April)
• apologies for teleconf tonight (Thursday, 11 April)
• LANG: What does "simpler" mean? (Tuesday, 2 April)
• WOWG: annotated version of first language proposal available (Tuesday, 2 April)
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)

Guus Schreiber

• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Thursday, 25 April)
• AGENDA: April 25 telecon (Wednesday, 24 April)
• ADMIN: please check A'dam ftf roll-call (Wednesday, 24 April)
• GUIDE: proposal for target results (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• AGENDA: April 11 telecon (Wednesday, 10 April)
• MISC: A'dam ftf photos (Tuesday, 9 April)
• GUIDE: UML notations for OWL (Wednesday, 3 April)

herman.ter.horst@philips.com

• regrets april 25 telecon (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• LANG: frames and frame terminology (Wednesday, 17 April)
• LANG: PrimitiveClass, DefinedClass (Wednesday, 17 April)

Ian Horrocks

• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) (Sunday, 28 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• ADMIN: Re: minutes for review: WebOnt April 18 Telecon (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Saturday, 6 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (fwd) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (fwd) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: TEST categorize test suites (Friday, 5 April)

Jeff Heflin

• REGRETS: April 25 telecon (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Friday, 5 April)
• F2F: Remote participation? (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: LANG: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: LANG: pushing daml:collection was: Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? (Monday, 1 April)

Jeremy Carroll

• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Tuesday, 30 April)
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: SEM: Layering (Friday, 26 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: DTTF: my summary (Thursday, 25 April)
• DTTF: List Ontology test case (Thursday, 25 April)
• DTTF: my summary (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Wednesday, 24 April)
• WOWG Request to invite Observers (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: re-raising an old issue (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: ISSUES: new issues doc (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• new issues - informal list (Friday, 19 April)
• WOWG: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: ftf2 record: roll call? (Thursday, 18 April)
• TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Thursday, 18 April)
• Clarification of f2f IRC log for minutes (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach (Thursday, 18 April)
• Closed Containers (was Re: ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon) (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Thursday, 18 April)
• WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f (Thursday, 18 April)
• SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Problems with dark triples approach (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: TEST: formalizing f2f decisions (Wednesday, 17 April)
• TEST: formalizing f2f decisions (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Dark triples motivation (Monday, 15 April)
• Exhange langauge (Thursday, 11 April)
• RE: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. (Friday, 5 April)
• JOKE: Re: Ontology Naming (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) (Thursday, 4 April)
• TEST: agenda for f2f breakout (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: LANG: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? (Tuesday, 2 April)

Jim Hendler

• ADMIN: May 9 telecon cancelled (Wednesday, 1 May)
• ADMIN: WOWG Telecon Agenda, May 2 (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: Ann: Web Services Architecture Requirements published (fwd) (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Issue: Language Compliance Levels (Monday, 29 April)
• Please ignore my message (was: Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples) (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• ISSUE: trust (from the public comments page) (Friday, 19 April)
• RDF Core and Dark Triples (from RDF Core) (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Thursday, 18 April)
• ADMIN: WOWG telecon agenda update/change for 4/18 (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Wednesday, 17 April)
• ADMIN: (Wednesday, 17 April)
• ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon (Wednesday, 17 April)
• WOWG: Welcome new member (Friday, 12 April)
• WOWG: Potential new issues (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: F2F: Remote participation? (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Saturday, 6 April)
• WOWG: Welcome new member (Thursday, 4 April)
• WOWG: ADMIN: Telecon Cancelled - APril 4, 2002 (Tuesday, 2 April)

John F. Sowa

• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? (Monday, 1 April)

Jonathan Borden

• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensiveentailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Monday, 15 April)
• ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes (Sunday, 14 April)
• ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes (Sunday, 14 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list (Friday, 5 April)

Jonathan Dale

• Regrets for 4/25 telecon (Friday, 19 April)
• Apologies for April 11 telecon (Wednesday, 10 April)

Jos De_Roo

• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: TEST: sameBagAs testcase (Sunday, 28 April)
• TEST: sameBagAs testcase (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: A way out of the "dark" (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: TEST: formalizing f2f decisions (Wednesday, 17 April)
• construct for closed lists [Was: AGENDA: April 11 telecon] (Thursday, 11 April)
• thinking about unasserted triples (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Saturday, 6 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Saturday, 6 April)
• Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? (Monday, 1 April)

jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com

• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Saturday, 27 April)
• Re: SEM: Layering (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: partial regrets for 4/25 (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Monday, 22 April)

larry.eshelman@philips.com

• Re: Webont April 25th Telecon - minutes for review. (Thursday, 25 April)

Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston)

• REGRETS: 4/25 (Thursday, 25 April)

Leo Obrst

• Re: GUIDE: UML notations for OWL (Thursday, 4 April)

Libby Miller

• Webont April 25th Telecon - minutes for review. (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Apologies for April 11 telecon (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)

Massimo Marchiori

• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Dark triples: call for order (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: A way out of the "dark" (Thursday, 18 April)
• A way out of the "dark" (Thursday, 18 April)
• Teleconf facilities for today's WOWG. (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG (Monday, 8 April)

Mike Dean

• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions (Wednesday, 24 April)

Nick Gibbins

• MINUTES: 11 April 2002 telecon, for review (Friday, 12 April)

Pat Hayes

• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Wednesday, 24 April)
• partial regrets for 4/25 (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Saturday, 20 April)
• re-raising an old issue (Friday, 19 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: A way out of the "dark" (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: A way out of the "dark" (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Dark triples motivation (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Moving forward (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL (Monday, 8 April)
• RE: Moving forward (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list (Monday, 8 April)
• Solipsism is first-order (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) (Sunday, 7 April)
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list (Monday, 8 April)
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (Monday, 8 April)
• RE: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) (Friday, 5 April)
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: classes as instances (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: (SeWeb) Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: LANG, SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL (Tuesday, 2 April)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Saturday, 27 April)
• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case (Saturday, 27 April)
• Re: LANG: owl:quote (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: circular primitive (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Dark triples motivation (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: F2F: Remote participation? (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (Friday, 5 April)
• SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: Admin: Notes Telecon 28 March (Monday, 1 April)

Raphael Volz

• AW: AW: Conformance Layers in WebOnt (Sunday, 28 April)

ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com

• Telecon 25th April (Friday, 26 April)
• RE: WOWG: Potential new issues (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Antwort: WOWG: Potential new issues (Thursday, 11 April)

Said Tabet

• RE: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)

Smith, Michael K

• ADMIN: Regrets 5/2 (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: ISSUE: Semantic Layering (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: SEM: Layering (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples (Thursday, 25 April)
• LANG: owl:quote (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: ADMIN: Issue submission and format (Wednesday, 24 April)
• SEM: Layering (Friday, 19 April)
• ISSUES: new issues doc (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: ISSUES - how to submit (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: ISSUES document (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Ontology Naming (Monday, 8 April)
• Ontology Naming (Thursday, 4 April)

Stanton, John

• Applied Semantics, and Others Wants to Sell Us Shrink-wrap....(?) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Stefan Decker

• Regrets April 25 Telecon (Thursday, 25 April)

Stephen Buswell

• RE: ADMIN: (Thursday, 18 April)
• Amsterdam f2f Issue ?? (cardinality constructs and levels) (Friday, 12 April)

Thompson, Lynne R

• Regrets 4/18 telecob (Thursday, 18 April)

tim finin

• Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (Thursday, 11 April)
• NEWS: Common Logic (Sunday, 7 April)
• NEWS: opencyc 0.6 released on sourceforge (Saturday, 6 April)

Trastour, David

• RE: Apologies for April 11 telecon (Thursday, 11 April)

Ziv Hellman

• RE: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] (Sunday, 28 April)
• RE: LANG: compliance levels (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: WOWG: Potential new issues (Sunday, 14 April)

Last message date: Tuesday, 30 April 2002 22:31:06 UTC