Issue-114
First draft of Traceability Requirements Matrix (Action 153)
[UFDTF] A start on a draft for the OWL2 Requirements document
Resolution of ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24 (ACTION-163)
RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
- Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
This may be relevant to both owl/xml issues: Issue-97 and Issue-109
ISSUE-108: naming of profiles
ISSUE-131 (Single OWL-R profile): We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles
Final Agenda for TC 25/06/2008
Agenda TC 25/06/2008
Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81 (reification in netagive property assertions)
- RE: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81 (reification in netagive property assertions)
- RE: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81 (reification in netagive property assertions)
RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): The list of normative datatypes should be revisited
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): The list of normative datatypes should be revisited
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): The list of normative datatypes should be revisited
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): The list of normative datatypes should be revisited
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): The list of normative datatypes should be revisited
Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString
Interesting post related to the GRDDL issue
ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- RE: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
- Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?
Agenda for TC 18/06/2008
N-ary Data Predicates
I've extended the specification with easy keys (ACTION-160)
Top object and data properties added (as part of my open ACTION-160)
I have updated the RDF mapping according to Michael's comments
Minutes (11 Jun, 4 Jun, UFDTF)
Minutes Jun 11 2008
RE: ISSUE-124 (datarange complement): The complement of a datarange is defined relative to the whole data domain
A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)
- RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)
- Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)
- Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)
- RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)
Re: Issue-111 another angle and questions
Agenda for teleconference 2008.06.11
ACTION-147: Review of the RDF mapping
- One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
- Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
[UFDTF] records for UFDTF telecons from 2 June and today are available
I have changed the spec to follow the W3C's style manual regarding the usage of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT
rdf:Property, reverse mapping, backwards compatibility
Representation of Negative Assertions in OWL 1.0
- Re: Representation of Negative Assertions in OWL 1.0
- RE: Representation of Negative Assertions in OWL 1.0
Annotation of axioms
ISSUE-130 (confwarn): Conformance, warnings, errors
proposal to close ISSUE-127 (narynotyet)
Documenting "interesting" equivalences
Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111)
RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- RE: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- RE: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
- RE: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
- Re: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
- Re: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
- ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
- Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- RE: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
- RE: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
ISSUE-104: Several issues with the current treatment of disallowed vocabulary
- RE: ISSUE-104: Several issues with the current treatment of disallowed vocabulary
Agenda for TC 2008-06-04
For namespace reuse
Potential performance problems with easy keys
Minutes 28/05/2008
RE: [Full] another minor issue with OWL Full/ rdfs:Datatype vs owl:DataRange
Re: UFDTF Meeting this monday 2008-06-02 (off-week)
Re: Question about problems with top/bottom property
- RE: Question about problems with top/bottom property
- Re: Question about problems with top/bottom property