public-owl-comments@w3.org from March 2009 by date

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Tom Morris Tom Morris
• Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 30 March 2009

• RE: [LC response] To Jeremy Caroll Jeremy Carroll
• [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Caroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Caroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To SWD WG Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks
• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees
• RE: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Boris Motik
• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees
• patterns for searchable representation of quantifiable objects Wolfgang Orthuber

Friday, 27 March 2009

• [Response] To Jonathan Rees Re: Editorial comments on RDF-based semantics Michael Schneider
• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees
• [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Marko Luther Ian Horrocks
• [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Ian Horrocks
• [LC Response] To Jonas von Malottki Re: OWL2 Ian Horrocks
• Re: [LC response] To Bijan Parsia Bijan Parsia
• [LC response] To Bijan Parsia Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Tom Morris Ian Horrocks

Thursday, 26 March 2009

• Re: [LC Response] To Jos de Bruijn Re: a few comments about the OWL 2 drafts Jos de Bruijn
• Re: [LC response] To Marijke Keet Marijke Keet
• Re: [LC response] To Ivan Herman- LC comment on OWL 2 QL Ivan Herman

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

• Re: [LC Response] To M. Scott Marshall Re: OWL2 comments Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Jacco van Ossenbruggen Re: Confusion about the status of the XML Serialisation syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Jos de Bruijn Re: a few comments about the OWL 2 drafts Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jonathan Rees Re: Editorial comments on RDF-based semantics Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC response] To Ivan Herman- LC comment on OWL 2 QL Uli Sattler
• [LC response] To Roman Kontchakov & Michael Zakharyaschev- LC comment on OWL 2 QL Uli Sattler
• [LC response] To Maurizio Lenzerini, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Riccardo Rosati - LC comment on OWL 2 QL Uli Sattler

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Marko Luther Marko Luther
• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees

Monday, 23 March 2009

• [LC response] To Marijke Keet Ian Horrocks
• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) Jim Hendler
• RE: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Boris Motik

Friday, 20 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees
• Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Jonathan Rees
• Re: [LC Response] To Jos de Bruijn Re: why restrict the set of datatypes in OWL 2 RL profile? Jos de Bruijn

Thursday, 19 March 2009

• Re: [LC Response] To Chris Welty Re: non-disjoint value spaces for numeric datatypes Chris Welty
• Comment received and ackowledged Alan Rector
• OWL Last Call comment Ian Horrocks
• OWL Last Call comment Ian Horrocks
• OWL Last Call comment Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To SWD WG Ian Horrocks
• Re: [LC Response #2] to Jan Wielemaker, Re: Triples and OWL2 Jan Wielemaker
• Re: [LC response] To Matthew Horridge Matthew Horridge
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Matthew Horridge Ian Horrocks
• RE: [LC response] To Michael Schneider Michael Schneider
• [LC response] To Michael Schneider Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Guus Schreiber Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Ian Horrocks

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

• [LC Response #2] to Jan Wielemaker, Re: Triples and OWL2 Ivan Herman
• RE: [LC response] To Michael Schneider Re: Clarify what it means that the value in a facet-value pair (F v) is an "arbitrary object" Michael Schneider
• [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Boris Motik
• [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Boris Motik
• Re: [LC Response] To Chris Welty Re: RIF perspective on supported datatypes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jos de Bruijn Re: why restrict the set of datatypes in OWL 2 RL profile? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Chris Welty Re: non-disjoint value spaces for numeric datatypes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To M. Scott Marshall Re: OWL2 comments Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jacco van Ossenbruggen Re: Confusion about the status of the XML Serialisation syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jonas von Malottki Re: OWL2 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jos de Bruijn Re: a few comments about the OWL 2 drafts Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC response] To Michael Schneider Re: Clarify what it means that the value in a facet-value pair (F v) is an "arbitrary object" Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

• Re: [LC Response] To Jeremy Rogers (Re: OWL2 annotations) Dr Jeremy Rogers

Monday, 16 March 2009

• [LC response] To Marko Luther Ian Horrocks

Friday, 13 March 2009

• Re: [LC Response] To Frank van Harmelen Re: General comments on OWL2 design Frank van Harmelen
• RE: [LC response] To Jan Hladik Hladik, Jan
• Re: [LC Response] To Chimezie Ogbuji Re: Comments for OWL2-RL profile Chimezie Ogbuji
• Re: [LC Response] To Chimezie Ogbuji Re: Comments for OWL2-RL profile Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Frank van Harmelen Re: General comments on OWL2 design Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Jeremy Rogers (Re: OWL2 annotations) Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler Alan Ruttenberg

Sunday, 8 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Jos de Bruijn Jos de Bruijn

Friday, 6 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Kaarel Kaljurand Kaarel Kaljurand
• [LC response] To Jan Hladik Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Kaarel Kaljurand Ian Horrocks
• [LC response] To Jos de Bruijn Ian Horrocks
• RE: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2 Michael Schneider

Thursday, 5 March 2009

• Re: [LC response] To Ralf Moeller Michael Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Mike Smith - Re: Comment on RDF Mapping: variables in sequence pattern Mike Smith
• Re: [LC Response] To Mike Smith - Re: Comment on RDF Mapping: variables in sequence pattern Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [LC Response] To Marijke Keet Re: haskey clarification Marijke Keet
• [LC response] To Jonathan Rees Ivan Herman
• [LC response] To Andrea Splendiani Ivan Herman
• Re: [LC Response] To Jonathan Rees Re: The two imports closure definitions disagree Jonathan Rees

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

• [LC Response] To Chimezie Ogbuji Re: Comments for OWL2-RL profile Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: [LC response] To Michael Schneider Re: LC Comment: "lexical value" vs. "lexical form" Michael Schneider
• [LC Response] To Jonathan Rees Re: The two imports closure definitions disagree Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Marijke Keet Re: haskey clarification Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Frank van Harmelen Re: General comments on OWL2 design Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC Response] To Chris Welty Re: RIF perspective on supported datatypes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [LC response] To Michael Schneider Re: LC Comment: "lexical value" vs. "lexical form" Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

• [LC Response] To Jeremy Rogers (Re: OWL2 annotations) Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 2 March 2009

• RE: [LC response] To Michael Schneider Michael Schneider
• [LC response] To Michael Schneider Boris Motik
• Re: Re 2: [LC Response] to Jan Wielemaker, Re: Triples and OWL2 Jan Wielemaker

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 23:15:14 UTC