public-prov-wg@w3.org from February 2013 by author

Curt Tilmes

• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Tuesday, 5 February)
• PROV-XML element ordering (Tuesday, 5 February)

Daniel Garijo

• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 20 February)
• PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Status of the DC Note (Thursday, 7 February)
• Status of the DC Note (Thursday, 7 February)

Graham Klyne

• Re: PROV-AQ document revisions for next working draft (Thursday, 28 February)
• PROV-AQ document revisions for next working draft (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: request for comments on media types section of PROV-XML (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: [PROV-AQ] Multiple anchors and provenance-URIs (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-613 (prov-aq-draft-review): Review paq for release as last call working draft [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-618 (pingback-in-prov-aq): Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 4 February)
• Fwd: Re: PROV-ISSUE-622 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)
• Fwd: Re: PROV-ISSUE-622 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-622 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)

Huynh T.D.

• RE: Prov-XML test cases (Monday, 4 February)

Ivan Herman

• Re: Primer embedded provenance (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: prov-links is staged (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• If the editors use respec… (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (Friday, 8 February)
• Pattern for the PR request (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-620 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-619 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)

James Cheney

• Re: a question on semantics prov-sem and soundness of constraints (issue-630) (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: a question on semantics prov-sem and soundness of constraints (issue-630) (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: question on constraint 47 (3) - wasAssociatedWith-ordering (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: question on constraint 47 (3) - wasAssociatedWith-ordering (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Prov-XML test cases (Monday, 4 February)

Khalid Belhajjame

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: PROV-DICTIONARY internal review for first public working draft (ISSUE-614) (Tuesday, 5 February)

Luc Moreau

• Re: PROV-AQ document revisions for next working draft (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: a question on semantics prov-sem and soundness of constraints (issue-630) (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Thursday, 28 February)
• a question on semantics prov-sem and soundness of constraints (issue-630) (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: prov-dictionary (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: prov-dictionary (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: prov-links is staged (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Editors: Update your staged documents (Wednesday, 27 February)
• prov-links is staged (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Tuesday, 26 February)
• review of prov-xml (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Fwd: Fwd: [IANA #660606] Request for MIME media type Text/Standards Tree - provenance-notation (Monday, 25 February)
• prov-dc (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: Provenance Working Group Teleconference: Minutes of 21 February 2012 (Monday, 25 February)
• Provenance Working Group Teleconference: Minutes of 21 February 2012 (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Saturday, 23 February)
• Prov-XML mime type application (Friday, 22 February)
• prov-dictionary (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• scribe required please (Thursday, 21 February)
• automating the staging of w3c specifications (Wednesday, 20 February)
• question on html rendering (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: prov-dm and new boilerplate for specifications (Tuesday, 19 February)
• provenance wg weekly teleconference: agenda (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• prov-dm and new boilerplate for specifications (Wednesday, 13 February)
• embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: Little PROV-O questions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Little PROV-O questions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• to editors (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: question about hadRole in example for qualifiedInfluence (Tuesday, 12 February)
• {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Provenance Working Group Teleconference: Minutes of 31 January 2013 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)

Miles, Simon

• Primer embedded provenance (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Tuesday, 26 February)
• RE: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Friday, 22 February)
• RE: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Friday, 22 February)
• RE: scribe required please (Thursday, 21 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• PROV-XML examples in primer (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: prov-dm and new boilerplate for specifications (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity reference [Primer] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: response about wasQuotedFrom (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Thursday, 14 February)

Paolo Missier

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Wednesday, 27 February)

Paul Groth

• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Editors: Update your staged documents (Wednesday, 27 February)
• prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 28, 2012 (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: PROV-DC Note ready for internal (final?) review (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: question on html rendering (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• response about wasQuotedFrom (Tuesday, 19 February)
• prov-wg Updated Implementation report (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Little PROV-O questions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• prov-wg Minutes of the February 7, 2013 Telcon (Tuesday, 12 February)
• prov-wg schedule going towards PR (please read) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: question on constraint 47 (3) - wasAssociatedWith-ordering (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Wednesday, 6 February)
• prov-wg new blog post up (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-618 (pingback-in-prov-aq): Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 3 February)

Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker

• PROV-ISSUE-634 (small issues-paul): Small issues to fix in the DC Note [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-633 (Minor Issues): Minor Issues of the PROV-DC document [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Tuesday, 26 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-632 (PROV-AQ-rename): Should PROV-AQ be renamed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 26 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-631 (dct:replaces): Remove dct:replaces as direct mapping, add it as a complex mapping [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Monday, 25 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Monday, 25 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-629 (rephrase-abstract): Rephrase abstract in prov-dc note [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Monday, 25 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-628 (prov-anchor-inconsistency): Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 21 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-626 (clarify-date-text): The text about the dates is difficult to understand [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Thursday, 7 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-625 (fix-images): Fix images of the DC Note [Mapping PROV-O to Dublin Core] (Thursday, 7 February)
• PROV-ISSUE-624 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)

Satya Sahoo

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (Wednesday, 27 February)

Stephan Zednik

• Re: prov-wg Telecon February 28, 2013 (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: review of prov-xml (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: Prov-XML mime type application (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-591: delegation PROV-O example missing activity reference [Primer] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• updates to PROV-XML Note (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: {Disarmed} Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-XML element ordering (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• PROV XML Identifiers - discussion and straw poll (Tuesday, 5 February)

Stian Soiland-Reyes

• Re: review of prov-xml (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: ISSUE-595: Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Multiple XML schema files for a common target namespace (PROV-ISSUE-608) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-619 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-618 (pingback-in-prov-aq): Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-620 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)

Tim Lebo

• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Wednesday, 13 February)

Timothy Lebo

• Re: Editors: Update your staged documents (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: embedding prov metadata in the specs (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: provenance links for proposed recommendations (Thursday, 21 February)
• suggestion for prov/provenance/prov-dm files (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Some comments on prov-dictionary (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Some comments on prov-dictionary (Thursday, 14 February)
• Some comments on prov-dictionary (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Adding GRDDL to FAQ (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Little PROV-O questions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Little PROV-O questions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: examples with blank nodes in prov-o html document (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: question about hadRole in example for qualifiedInfluence (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Friday, 8 February)
• Fwd: The wasQuotedFrom relationship (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: prov-aq review for release as working draft (ISSUE-613) (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-618 (pingback-in-prov-aq): Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 1 February)

Tom De Nies

• Re: prov-dictionary (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: prov-dictionary (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Some comments on prov-dictionary (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: prov-wg Implementation Report Review (Due Fri Feb 15) (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: [PROV-AQ] Multiple anchors and provenance-URIs (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: [PROV-AQ] Multiple anchors and provenance-URIs (Thursday, 7 February)
• [PROV-AQ] Multiple anchors and provenance-URIs (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: prov-wg Telcon Agenda Feb 07, 2012 (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: PROV-DICTIONARY internal review for first public working draft (ISSUE-614) (Tuesday, 5 February)

Last message date: Thursday, 28 February 2013 22:20:05 UTC