Saturday, 22 December 2007
- JOB: R&D Position @ Clark & Parsia LLC
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning
Friday, 21 December 2007
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning
Thursday, 20 December 2007
- CFP: Fifth International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- European Master in Computational Logic - scholarships for non-European and European students
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Re: Neophyte question - modelling Alpha Taxonomies in RDF and Owl
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
- Neophyte question - modelling Alpha Taxonomies in RDF and Owl
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Protege-OWL Short Course, March 24-26, 2008, Stanford University
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Monday, 17 December 2007
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Please avoid unnecessary CCs
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- ESWC 2008 2nd Call for System Demonstrations
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
Sunday, 16 December 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]
- cfp: Role of Services, Ontologies, and Context in Mobile Environments (RoSOC-M '08), April 27, 2008, Beijing, China
Friday, 14 December 2007
Thursday, 13 December 2007
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] QCR problem in OWL 1.1 Full - action ?? from F2F
- RE: Annotations with OWL
- Annotations with OWL
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- CFP SOCASE @ AAMAS 2008
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
Monday, 10 December 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
- Cfp: ESWC 2008 Ph.D. Symposium
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)
Sunday, 9 December 2007
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Friday, 7 December 2007
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Saturday, 1 December 2007
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Saturday, 1 December 2007
- Re: OWL 1.1... does this make sense
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
Friday, 30 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- Final CFP: 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2008)
- OWL 1.1... does this make sense
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
Thursday, 29 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- KR08 Doctoral Consortium, Call for Applications
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): real semantic-free RDF-comments
Monday, 26 November 2007
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Friday, 23 November 2007
Thursday, 22 November 2007
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
- RE: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Call for Papers: WaGe08 - Workflow Management and Applications in Grid Environments
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Monday, 12 November 2007
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Higher order quantification in OWL-DL with bNodes?
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Defining the universal property in OWL-1.1
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Higher order quantification in OWL-DL with bNodes?
Sunday, 11 November 2007
Saturday, 10 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Higher order quantification in OWL-DL with bNodes?
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Defining the universal property in OWL-1.1
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Higher order quantification in OWL-DL with bNodes?
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
- Re: What about sub property chains for datatype properties? (ISSUE-8)
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Monday, 5 November 2007
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Monday, 5 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: What about sub property chains for datatype properties? (ISSUE-8)
- Re: What about sub property chains for datatype properties? (ISSUE-8)
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: bags of axioms
- Re: bags of axioms
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Sunday, 4 November 2007
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Friday, 2 November 2007
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
- Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Thursday, 1 November 2007
- Re: bags of axioms
- DL08 Call for Papers
- Re: bags of axioms
- Re: bags of axioms
- [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Monday, 29 October 2007
Friday, 26 October 2007
Thursday, 25 October 2007
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- ESWC 2008 Call for Panel Proposals
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
- ESWC 2008 Call for Panel Proposals
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: a comment on geography (was Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full)
- Re: a comment on geography
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: a comment on geography
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: a comment on geography (was Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full)
- a comment on geography (was Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full)
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
Monday, 22 October 2007
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full
- Some basic questions about OWL-Full
Friday, 19 October 2007
Thursday, 18 October 2007
- RE: Representing anonymous individual in SemWeb Best Practice documents
- RE: (Object|Data)Property axioms missing in semantics document
- RE: (Object|Data)Property axioms missing in semantics document
- (Object|Data)Property axioms missing in semantics document
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
- Re: Representing anonymous individual in SemWeb Best Practice documents
- RE: Role of 'public-webont-comments'? [WAS: Are the acyclicity "nonstructural restrictions" too strict?]
- Re: Role of 'public-webont-comments'? [WAS: Are the acyclicity "nonstructural restrictions" too strict?]
- Role of 'public-webont-comments'? [WAS: Are the acyclicity "nonstructural restrictions" too strict?]
- RE: Representing anonymous individual in SemWeb Best Practice documents
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
- Re: Are the acyclicity "nonstructural restrictions" too strict?
- Are the acyclicity "nonstructural restrictions" too strict?
Monday, 15 October 2007
- RE: A perfect brother [WAS: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1]
- Re: A perfect brother [WAS: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1]
- A perfect brother [WAS: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1]
Sunday, 14 October 2007
Friday, 12 October 2007
- RE: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Re: Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
- Defining cross products in OWL-1.1
Thursday, 11 October 2007
- RE: Is OWL-1.1 issue 14 still an issue?
- Re: typo in OWL 1.1 syntax
- Re: Is OWL-1.1 issue 14 still an issue?
- Re: typo in OWL 1.1 syntax
- Is OWL-1.1 issue 14 still an issue?
- typo in OWL 1.1 syntax
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Monday, 8 October 2007
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Monday, 8 October 2007
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Friday, 5 October 2007
- RE: Unclear about Nonstructural Restriction [WAS: Inferring Properties based on Types]
- Re: Unclear about Nonstructural Restriction [WAS: Inferring Properties based on Types]
- IEEE TASE special issue on "Scientific Workflow Management and Applications"
- Unclear about Nonstructural Restriction [WAS: Inferring Properties based on Types]
Thursday, 4 October 2007
- FW: [ontolog-invitation] Two Sessions on "Distributed Collaboration in Ontology Development" coming up - Oct. 4 & 11, 2007
- Wrong axiom names in "Nonstructural" chapter of OWL-1.1 draft
- Re: bnodes
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
- Bnodes redux. (was: Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are)
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- [TF:Rules][TF:UnO][TF:RA] Blog posts of interest
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: Degree of acceptance of BFO
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: bnodes
- RE: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: bnodes
- RE: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
- Re: bnodes
- Re: bnodes
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- RE: Degree of acceptance of BFO
- Re: bnodes
- Re: bnodes
- Re: bnodes
- Re: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its data?
- Re: Degree of acceptance of BFO
- Re: bnodes
- Re: Degree of acceptance of BFO
- Re: bnodes
- Degree of acceptance of BFO
- RE: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its data?
- Re: bnodes
- What about sub property chains for datatype properties?
- Re: bnodes
- Re: bnodes
- bnodes
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
Monday, 1 October 2007
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- Re: Inferring Properties based on Types
- Re: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its data?
- RE: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its data?
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- RE: Inferring Properties based on Types
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: On classes and property permissions
- Re: Inferring Properties based on Types
- Re: Inferring Properties based on Types
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are
- Re: [TF:DbE] The easiest keys there are