public-owl-wg@w3.org from February 2009 by author

Alan Ruttenberg

• Re: comment on answer to comment... (OW/XML) (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: comment on answer to comment... (OW/XML) (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 45 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Alan Ruttenberg: Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Alan Ruttenberg: Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Drafting responses to LC comments. (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Thursday, 12 February)
• ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: OWL2 and RDF (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: Proposal for multiple syntaxes everywhere (Sunday, 1 February)

Antoine Zimmermann

• Re: Draft for the response to LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Introduction (Monday, 16 February)

Bijan Parsia

• Re: comment on answer to comment... (OW/XML) (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: comment on answer to comment... (OW/XML) (Saturday, 28 February)
• ACTION-288 Completed (in a different way) (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Other GRDDL concerns which should not be lost (Thursday, 26 February)
• Other GRDDL concerns which should not be lost (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Availability (Monday, 23 February)
• Agenda Amendment: JH1 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Agenda TC 18/02/2009 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Agenda TC 18/02/2009 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 38 (editorial) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 46 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: ACTION-278 (Unicode reference in rdf:text) (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: ACTION-278 (Unicode reference in rdf:text) (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Alan Ruttenberg: Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: TR1 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Alan Ruttenberg: Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Wednesday, 18 February)
• TR1 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-280 completed (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: ACTION-280 completed (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: ACTION-280 completed (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: draft for JH1 (keys) (Wednesday, 4 February)
• ACTION-280 completed (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: Proposal for multiple syntaxes everywhere (Sunday, 1 February)

Boris Motik

• Draft for the response to LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Tuesday, 24 February)
• A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Draft response to LC comment 15 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Draft response to LC comment 38 (editorial) (Wednesday, 18 February)

Chris Welty

• Re: Alan Ruttenberg: Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Thursday, 19 February)

Christine Golbreich

• New topics for NF&R (Friday, 27 February)
• question on schedule (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Agenda TC 18/02/2009 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Update on NF&R (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• Comments on NF&R (Monday, 9 February)
• draft for JH1 (keys) (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Agenda TC 04/02/2009 (Wednesday, 4 February)

Giannis Tsakonas

• 13th European Conference on Digital Libraries - Final Call for Tutorials, Workshops and Panels (Friday, 20 February)
• 13th European Conference on Digital Libraries - Calls for Special Tracks (Thursday, 19 February)
• 13th European Conference on Digital Libraries - Call for Tutorials, Workshops, DC papers, Panels (Friday, 6 February)

Héctor Pérez-Urbina

• Agenda TC 18/02/2009 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• OWL WG (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Agenda TC 04/02/2009 (Tuesday, 3 February)

Ian Horrocks

• Re: State of the RDF-Based Semantics document (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value) (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 45 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• No teleconf next week (25th Feb) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 46 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 45 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 38 (editorial) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Print out of Functional-style syntax has tiny fonts. (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: TR1 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: TR1 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: References templates (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: Profiles again (was Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) ) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 50 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 53 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: proposed response to LC comment 55 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION-278 (Unicode reference in rdf:text) (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: proposed response to LC comment 43 sections 2,5,6 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Saturday, 14 February)
• F2F agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Dealing with LC comments (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Monday, 9 February)
• Minutes of 2009-01-04 teleconf (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: LC comment: sameAs in OWL QL (Monday, 9 February)
• Fwd: Naming issues (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: OWL2 and RDF (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-268 (Monday, 9 February)
• OWL 2 profile checker (Thursday, 5 February)
• Naming issues (Tuesday, 3 February)

Ivan Herman

• Re: question on schedule (Thursday, 26 February)
• comment on answer to comment... (OW/XML) (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: draft response for 47 / MK1 (discussed in F2F5) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Simpler editing of wiki tables (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Draft Response to LC comment 42/AS1 (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: State of the RDF-Based Semantics document (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Saturday, 21 February)
• draft response to LC comment 56/57, TC1, Taylor Cowan (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Friday, 20 February)
• 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 46 (Thursday, 19 February)
• 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: LC comment: sameAs in OWL QL (Wednesday, 11 February)
• DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: OWL2 and RDF (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-280 completed (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: ACTION-280 completed (Thursday, 5 February)
• LC comment: sameAs in OWL QL (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: Proposal for multiple syntaxes everywhere (Sunday, 1 February)

Jie Bao

• ACTION-278 (Unicode reference in rdf:text) (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: Proposal for multiple syntaxes everywhere (Sunday, 1 February)

Jim Hendler

• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: [LC response] To Jim Hendler (was Re: Fwd: Question re: HasKey entailments) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Profiles again (was Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) ) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)

Markus Krötzsch

• Simpler editing of wiki tables (Monday, 23 February)

Michael Schneider

• RE: multiple-syntax-examples (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• RE: Implemented Resolution on LC-Comment 16 ("lexical value") in RDF-Based Semantics (Wednesday, 25 February)
• RE: draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• RE: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Implemented Resolution of LC Comment 34 (TQ) on property chains in RDF-Based Semantics (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Implemented Resolution on LC-Comment 16 ("lexical value") in RDF-Based Semantics (Wednesday, 25 February)
• RE: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Monday, 23 February)
• Syntactic Conformance: "OWL 2 DL Ontology Document": sufficient definition? (Monday, 23 February)
• RE: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value) (Saturday, 21 February)
• RE: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value) (Saturday, 21 February)
• State of the RDF-Based Semantics document (Saturday, 21 February)
• RE: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• RE: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Friday, 20 February)
• RE: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Thursday, 19 February)
• RE: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax) (Thursday, 19 February)
• ACTION-287: Draft of WG response to LC-Comment 51 / #1 (functional data properties) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• References templates (Monday, 16 February)
• RE: draft response for LC comment 53 (Monday, 16 February)
• RE: proposed response to LC comment 43 sections 2,5,6 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• RE: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Tuesday, 10 February)
• RE: Naming issues (Monday, 9 February)
• RE: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Thursday, 5 February)
• RE: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Thursday, 5 February)
• RE: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Wednesday, 4 February)

Michael Smith

• Re: [LC Response] To Michael Smith (was Re: The definition of entailment in the Direct Semantics document) (Tuesday, 24 February)
• [LC Response] To Michael Smith (was Re: The definition of entailment in the Direct Semantics document) (Tuesday, 24 February)

Mike Smith

• (second) draft response for LC comment 14 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 14 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• draft response for LC comment 14 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: LC comment: sameAs in OWL QL (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: OWL2 and RDF (Monday, 2 February)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: multiple-syntax-examples (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: multiple-syntax-examples (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: draft response for 47 / MK1 (discussed in F2F5) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• approving responses to LC comments (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Implemented Resolution on LC-Comment 16 ("lexical value") in RDF-Based Semantics (Wednesday, 25 February)
• draft response for 47 / MK1 (discussed in F2F5) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• draft response for 41 / BP3 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• draft response for 39 / BP1 (discussed in last TC) (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Draft Response to LC comment 42/AS1 (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: Throw it away! (Tuesday, 24 February)
• draft response for LC comment 25 RIF2 (Tuesday, 24 February)
• draft response for 43b ZW3b (Tuesday, 24 February)
• response for LC comment 23 JR1 (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Sunday, 22 February)
• abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value) (Saturday, 21 February)
• draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value) (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Friday, 20 February)
• possible responses for LC Comment 23 JR1 (Thursday, 19 February)
• partial response for LC comment 21 JDB2 (Thursday, 19 February)
• draft response for LC comment 62 JM1 (Thursday, 19 February)
• draft response for LC comment 32 CO1 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 15 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 45 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 38 (editorial) (Thursday, 19 February)
• [LC response] To Zhe Wu Re: OWL 2 LC Comments (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Print out of Functional-style syntax has tiny fonts. (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Agenda TC 18/02/2009 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 50 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• draft response for LC comment 31 (Saturday, 14 February)
• draft response for LC comment 50 (Saturday, 14 February)
• draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Saturday, 14 February)
• draft response for LC comment 53 (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Thursday, 12 February)
• proposed response to LC comment 7 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker (Wednesday, 11 February)
• proposed response to LC comment 55 (Tuesday, 10 February)
• proposed response to LC comment 43 sections 2,5,6 (Tuesday, 10 February)
• XML Schema last call documents and ACTION-252 (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: XML Schema 1.1 LCWD (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Naming issues (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: OWL2 and RDF (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 (Wednesday, 4 February)

Sandro Hawke

• Re: multiple-syntax-examples (Saturday, 28 February)
• multiple-syntax-examples (Friday, 27 February)
• Remote Participation at OWL F2F (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b) (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled (Thursday, 12 February)
• W3C Membership Survey (Tuesday, 10 February)
• XML Schema 1.1 LCWD (Monday, 9 February)
• notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting (Monday, 9 February)
• OWL+RIF coordination meeting on datatypes (Monday, 9 February)

Timothy Redmond

• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond. (Saturday, 14 February)

Uli Sattler

• Draft response to LC comment 46 (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Draft response to LC comment 46 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Draft response to LC comment 45 (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Draft response to LC comment 46 (Wednesday, 18 February)

Zhe Wu

• Re: [LC response] To Zhe Wu Re: OWL 2 LC Comments (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Print out of Functional-style syntax has tiny fonts. (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Print out of Functional-style syntax has tiny fonts. (Wednesday, 18 February)

Last message date: Saturday, 28 February 2009 20:42:10 UTC