public-ldp-wg@w3.org from February 2014 by author

Andrei Sambra

• Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Wednesday, 12 February)

Arnaud Le Hors

• LDP agenda for 3 March 2014 (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: class hierarchy of containers (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: class hierarchy of containers (Tuesday, 25 February)
• LDP Minutes for 24 February (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: LDP agenda for 24 February (Friday, 21 February)
• LDP agenda for 24 February (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Sandro's various issues (was Re: A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership?) (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• LDP Minutes for 17 February (Monday, 17 February)
• LDP agenda for 17 February (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: Question regarding involving another member on my team (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Creating members (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: Creating members (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)
• LDP Minutes for 10 February (Monday, 10 February)
• LDP agenda for 10 February (Friday, 7 February)
• LDP minutes for February 3 (Monday, 3 February)

Ashok Malhotra

• Re: proposal for refactoring Containers (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: LDP agenda for 24 February (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: some thoughts on ordering (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: who wants lossy paging? (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: "document" (Wednesday, 12 February)
• "document" (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Creating members (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Creating members (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 (Monday, 10 February)

Cody Burleson

• Regrets for Monday (Friday, 28 February)
• Question regarding involving another member on my team (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)
• To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)

David Wood

• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Tuesday, 11 February)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• draft of 209 RFC (Saturday, 22 February)

Erik Mannens

• CFP: Second International Workshop on Linked Media (Wednesday, 5 February)

henry.story@bblfish.net

• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: class hierarchy of containers (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: volunteering for the army (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: volunteering for the army (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: class hierarchy of containers (Tuesday, 25 February)
• class hierarchy of containers (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: lossless paging & volunteering for the army (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: lossless paging & volunteering for the army (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: lossless paging & volunteering for the army (Friday, 21 February)

John Arwe

• Re: stable paging (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: who wants lossy paging? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: LDP feedback ( LC-2812) (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: "document" (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Creating members (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Creating members (Wednesday, 12 February)
• normative change pushed (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Tuesday, 11 February)
• [23]xx status codes, prefer, and create (Monday, 10 February)

Kingsley Idehen

• Re: class hierarchy of containers (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: non-IRs, was Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: "document" (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: "document" (Wednesday, 12 February)

Pierre-Antoine Champin

• Re: LDP with JSON-LD ... and it looks good ! (Friday, 28 February)

Roger Menday

• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• LDP with JSON-LD … and it looks good ! (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: volunteering for the army (Wednesday, 26 February)
• Re: volunteering for the army (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 17 February)
• overwhelmed by the Terminology section ? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 14 February)

Sandro Hawke

• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer - volunteering for the army (Friday, 28 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer (Friday, 28 February)
• future work item: real solution to issue-15 (metadata on non-RDF resources) (Tuesday, 25 February)
• non-IRs, was Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 24 February)
• TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: proposal for refactoring Containers (Sunday, 23 February)
• proposal for refactoring Containers (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: LDP agenda for 24 February (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: LDP agenda for 24 February (Friday, 21 February)
• Sandro's various issues (was Re: A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership?) (Friday, 21 February)
• A simpler way of thinking about containment and membership? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• PATCH vs PUT (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: lossless paging using HATEOAS (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• lossless paging using HATEOAS (Wednesday, 19 February)
• ldp-extensions, ldp-paging, and Re: some thoughts on ordering (Tuesday, 18 February)
• some thoughts on ordering (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: who wants lossy paging? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: stable paging (Monday, 17 February)
• stable paging (Sunday, 16 February)
• who wants lossy paging? (Sunday, 16 February)

Sergio Fernández

• Re: LDPR vs LDPC interaction models (Friday, 28 February)
• LDPR vs LDPC interaction models (Friday, 21 February)

Steve Battle

• RE: LDP agenda for 24 February (Monday, 24 February)
• RE: LDP agenda for 10 February (Monday, 10 February)

Steve Speicher

• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer (Thursday, 27 February)
• Re: future work item: real solution to issue-15 (metadata on non-RDF resources) (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: LDPR vs LDPC interaction models (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: TWO PROPOSALs involving Prefer (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Monday, 24 February)
• Fixing (removing) clause 6.3.1 on LDPC GET needs (Monday, 24 February)
• Changed rule for LDPC PUT to be about containment triples (Thursday, 20 February)
• Removed should not use patch to create rule (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: lossless paging using HATEOAS (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: clarifying containment vs membership (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Completed split of paging from LDP spec (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Changes for latest names/terms accepted from today's meetings are live (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: Clarifying POST behavior for LDPCs. (Monday, 17 February)
• Editors' proposal for types of containers (Friday, 14 February)
• Editors' proposal for types of resources (Friday, 14 February)
• Editors' proposal for membership predicate names (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples (Monday, 10 February)

Yves Lafon

• Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 (Thursday, 13 February)

Last message date: Friday, 28 February 2014 23:46:08 UTC