public-rdf-wg@w3.org from March 2011 by date

Thursday, 31 March 2011

• Re: What *is* RDF? Pat Hayes
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Sandro Hawke
• Re: What *is* RDF? Alex Hall
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: What *is* RDF? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Ivan Herman
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Pat Hayes
• Re: What *is* RDF? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [TTL] Long literals Steve Harris
• [TTL] Standardizing N-Triples Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Turtle] EBNF error? (decimal and integer) Andy Seaborne
• [TTL] Long literals Andy Seaborne
• Re: What *is* RDF? Dan Brickley
• Re: What *is* RDF? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Nathan
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Ivan Herman
• Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Alex Hall
• Re: [Turtle] EBNF error? (decimal and integer) Alex Hall
• Re: [Turtle] EBNF error? (decimal and integer) Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

• [Turtle] EBNF error? (decimal and integer) Gavin Carothers
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Pat Hayes
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Andy Seaborne
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Andy Seaborne
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Nathan
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-20 (Numeric local part): The prefixed name "ns:123" is legal in SPARQL - should it be legal for Turtle? [RDF Turtle] Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Nathan
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Pat Hayes
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Andy Seaborne
• RDF-ISSUE-20 (Numeric local part): The prefixed name "ns:123" is legal in SPARQL - should it be legal for Turtle? [RDF Turtle] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Sandro Hawke
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Nathan
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Yves Raimond
• Re: ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? Nathan
• ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-18: How do we parse "18." in Turtle? RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [ALL] FTF presentations Matteo Brunati
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Guus Schreiber
• Re: Apologies William Waites
• [ALL] FTF presentations Guus Schreiber
• Re: [JSON] Consider Exhibit JSON? Matteo Brunati
• Re: [JSON] URI vs IRI Sandro Hawke
• Apologies Mischa Tuffield
• Re: [JSON] URI vs IRI Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST fensel
• [JSON] URI vs IRI Dan Brickley
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Thomas Steiner
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Manu Sporny

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Sandro Hawke
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Dan Brickley
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Axel Polleres
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Lee Feigenbaum
• [ALL] Agenda 30 Mar telecon, 1100 EST Guus Schreiber
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] Consider Exhibit JSON? Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Consider Exhibit JSON? Ivan Herman

Monday, 28 March 2011

• [JSON] Consider Exhibit JSON? David Wood
• [JSON] Objects and RDF Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Yves Raimond
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] Yves Raimond
• RDF-ISSUE-17 (graph merge): How are RDF datasets to be merged? [RDF Graphs] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• [JSON] Related Nathan

Sunday, 27 March 2011

• regrets (at www 2011) Fabien Gandon
• [JSON] fwd JSON Web Token (JWT) and JSON Web Signature (JWS) Dan Brickley

Saturday, 26 March 2011

• Re: a subject-oriented nested dictionary with simple keys for RDF Nathan

Friday, 25 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Nathan
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: What *is* RDF? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Semantics of JSON Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Richard Cyganiak
• a subject-oriented nested dictionary with simple keys for RDF Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Semantics of JSON Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Pat Hayes
• Re: What *is* RDF? David Wood
• Re: What *is* RDF? William Waites
• Re: [JSON] Semantics of JSON Michael Hausenblas
• Re: [JSON] comments? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-16 (Base JSON Grammar): What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar? [RDF JSON] Andy Seaborne
• Re: What *is* RDF? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] comments? Thomas Steiner
• RDF-ISSUE-16 (Base JSON Grammar): What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar? [RDF JSON] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Andy Seaborne
• [JSON] comments? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: What *is* RDF? Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] Semantics of JSON Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: (emphasising round-trip) Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Ivan Herman
• [JSON] Semantics of JSON Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Steve Harris
• (emphasising round-trip) Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases William Waites
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion William Waites
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Nathan
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: What *is* RDF? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Manu Sporny
• [JSON] Constraining JSON serialization discussion Manu Sporny
• What *is* RDF? Manu Sporny

Thursday, 24 March 2011

• [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: [JSON] beating MongoDB Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] User segments update Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Alex Hall
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Alex Hall
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Gavin Carothers
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: minutes 2011-03-23 David Wood
• minutes 2011-03-23 Jeremy Carroll
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Gavin Carothers
• [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Ivan Herman
• Re: initial draft of today's minutes Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Steve Harris
• initial draft of today's minutes Jeremy Carroll

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] beating MongoDB Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] beating MongoDB Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases Nathan
• Re: [JSON] beating MongoDB David Wood
• [JSON] Classifying the use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Nathan
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Zhe Wu
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Nathan
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] What *is* JSON? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] User segments update Richard Cyganiak
• [JSON] What *is* JSON? Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Tiny Proposal Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Zhe Wu
• [JSON] Tiny Proposal Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Nathan
• [JSON] beating MongoDB Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Nathan
• [JSON] usage example, JSON and RDF I/O in openbiblio William Waites
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room Manu Sporny
• [JSON] Elephant in the room Nathan
• Re: [JSON] User segments update William Waites
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Nathan
• Re: [JSON] User segments update Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Nathan
• Re: [JSON] User segments update Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" David Wood
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Thomas Steiner
• [JSON] User segments update Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Andy Seaborne
• [JSON] Some general serialization "things" Nathan
• [JSON] Examples for RDF JSON serializations side-by-side comparison Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Steve Harris
• Minutes March 16th Meeting Matteo Brunati
• Re: [JSON] data.nytimes Thomas Steiner
• [JSON] data.nytimes Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Steve Harris
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 23 March [FOR EUROPEANS ONE HOUR EARLIER] Matteo Brunati
• Re: [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Sandro Hawke
• [JSON] Summary of direction discussion Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] new yellow box, proposed solution Sandro Hawke

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] new yellow box, proposed solution Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: [JSON] new yellow box, proposed solution Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] new yellow box, proposed solution Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] market segments Andy Seaborne
• [JSON] new yellow box, proposed solution Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Sandro Hawke

Monday, 21 March 2011

• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Pat Hayes
• [ALL] Agenda 23 March [FOR EUROPEANS ONE HOUR EARLIER] David Wood
• [JSON] Minutes for today's discussion Manu Sporny
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Alex Hall
• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] The best of both worlds? Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] The best of both worlds? Nathan
• Re: [JSON] The best of both worlds? Nathan
• [JSON] The best of both worlds? Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Meeting TOMORROW Monday, March 21st Manu Sporny

Sunday, 20 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] Meeting TOMORROW Monday, March 21st Steve Harris
• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Meeting TOMORROW Monday, March 21st Andy Seaborne
• [JSON] Meeting TOMORROW Monday, March 21st Manu Sporny
• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence Pat Hayes
• [Graphs] g-text equivalence Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes

Saturday, 19 March 2011

• Re: +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes
• Re: +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes

Friday, 18 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] one data point: Anzo on the Web David Wood
• Re: [JSON] one data point: Anzo on the Web Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] one data point: Anzo on the Web Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Nathan
• Re: [JSON] one data point: Anzo on the Web David Wood
• Re: +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Gavin Carothers
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Gavin Carothers
• +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Sandro Hawke
• Re: Make FTF1 Hotel Reservations Soon David Wood
• Re: Which WG? Zhe Wu
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Andy Seaborne
• [Fwd: Re: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"] Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Nathan
• [JSON] one data point: Anzo on the Web Lee Feigenbaum
• [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs" Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Re: Make FTF1 Hotel Reservations Soon Ivan Herman
• Re: Make FTF1 Hotel Reservations Soon Pierre-Antoine Champin
• Doodle poll: RDF in JSON work Manu Sporny
• Make FTF1 Hotel Reservations Soon David Wood

Thursday, 17 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] market segments - 6B solutions Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] market segments - 6B solutions Nathan
• Re: [JSON] market segments - 6B solutions Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: [JSON] market segments Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] market segments Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Yves Raimond
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] market segments Nathan
• [JSON] market segments Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based David Wood
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Nathan
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Nathan
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Nathan
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Nathan
• Re: draft use case for named graphs from FOAF work Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based David Wood
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Apologies Mischa Tuffield
• draft use case for named graphs from FOAF work Dan Brickley
• Re: I cannot connect to the IRC Souripriya Das
• Re: I cannot connect to the IRC Mischa Tuffield
• ISSUE-15: What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-14: What is a named graph and what should we call it? RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: I cannot connect to the IRC Souripriya Das
• I cannot connect to the IRC Antoine Zimmermann
• [ALL] reminder: pls indicate your availability for ftf 13-14 April Guus Schreiber
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [Turtle] starting with http://www.w3.org/2010/01/Turtle/ Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Regrets Nathan
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Andy Seaborne
• Re: [ALL] Agenda 16 March [FOR EUROPEANS ONE HOUR EARLIER] Matteo Brunati
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Clarification on JSON-LD Ivan Herman
• regrets for the coming teleconference Zhe Wu
• Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Lee Feigenbaum
• [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Manu Sporny

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] Clarification on JSON-LD Manu Sporny
• Re: Is it possible to enable LaTeX support on the wiki? Ivan Herman
• [ALL] Agenda 16 March [FOR EUROPEANS ONE HOUR EARLIER] Guus Schreiber

Monday, 14 March 2011

• [GRAPH] Diagram added to GraphConcepts wiki page Gavin Carothers
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Antoine Zimmermann

Saturday, 12 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] Reviewing RDF in JSON specs Andy Seaborne
• JSON Syntax Options - Syntax Structure Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Proposals page updated Richard Cyganiak
• [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - Languages Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Proposals page updated Nathan
• [Turtle] Proposals page updated Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - Datatypes / Typed Literals Ivan Herman
• [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - Datatypes / Typed Literals Nathan
• Re: [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - URI Properties Nathan
• Re: [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - URI Properties Nathan
• Re: F2F Hotel recommendations? Steve Harris
• Re: F2F Hotel recommendations? Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - URI Properties Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - URI Properties Steve Harris

Friday, 11 March 2011

• [JSON] JSON Syntax Options - URI Properties Nathan
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Nathan
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Thomas Steiner
• F2F Hotel recommendations? Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Nathan
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Nathan
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Clarification on JSON-LD Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Thomas Steiner
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Ivan Herman
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Antoine Zimmermann

Thursday, 10 March 2011

• [JSON] Reference, activity streams Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Dan Brickley
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Andy Seaborne
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues David Wood
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Which WG? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Which WG? Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Clarification on JSON-LD Manu Sporny
• Which WG? Nathan
• Re: [ALL] Raised Issues Nathan
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Dan Brickley
• [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Thomas Steiner
• [ALL] Raised Issues David Wood
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• [JSON] Clarification on JSON-LD Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Other issues? Ivan Herman
• Re: Comments on bNode issue within RDB2RDF mapping language Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Thomas Steiner
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks][Turtle][JSON] Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Andy Seaborne

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman

Thursday, 10 March 2011

• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks][Turtle][JSON] Jeremy Carroll
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks][Turtle][JSON] Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Nathan
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Sandro Hawke
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Manu Sporny
• Re: Criteria for a good JSON RDF serialisation Nathan
• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Nathan

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

• Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Thomas Steiner
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Nathan
• Apologize fensel
• [JSON] the simple pivotal choice Nathan
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks][Turtle][JSON] Jeremy Carroll
• [JSON] Reviewing RDF in JSON specs Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Manu Sporny
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Manu Sporny
• [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON Manu Sporny
• Re: [Turtle] Some syntax related issues Andy Seaborne
• Re: Other issues? Mischa Tuffield
• Re: Other issues? Ivan Herman
• Re: Other issues? David Wood
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] David Wood
• Other issues? Mischa Tuffield
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Mischa Tuffield
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] David Wood
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Mischa Tuffield
• [Turtle] Some syntax related issues Mischa Tuffield
• Re: Comments on bNode issue within RDB2RDF mapping language Michael Hausenblas
• Re: Comments on bNode issue within RDB2RDF mapping language Michael Hausenblas
• Re: Comments on bNode issue within RDB2RDF mapping language Antoine Zimmermann
• Comments on bNode issue within RDB2RDF mapping language Michael Hausenblas
• [JSON] implementation guidance Manu Sporny
• Re: [Graphs] BNode scope in RDF Datasets proposal Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Graphs] BNode scope in RDF Datasets proposal Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Graphs] BNode scope in RDF Datasets proposal Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks][Turtle][JSON] Ivan Herman
• [Graphs] BNode scope in RDF Datasets proposal Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Manu Sporny
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] Jeremy Carroll
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] Jeremy Carroll

Tuesday, 8 March 2011

• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Turtle] the Turtle Grammar in the revised editor's draft does not allow comments in Turtledoc Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Ivan Herman
• Re: [Turtle] the Turtle Grammar in the revised editor's draft does not allow comments in Turtledoc Alex Hall
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Antoine Zimmermann
• [Turtle] the Turtle Grammar in the revised editor's draft does not allow comments in Turtledoc Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Ivan Herman
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: Is it possible to enable LaTeX support on the wiki? Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Nathan
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Ivan Herman
• Re: Is it possible to enable LaTeX support on the wiki? Sandro Hawke
• Re: Is it possible to enable LaTeX support on the wiki? Ivan Herman
• Is it possible to enable LaTeX support on the wiki? Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Ivan Herman
• Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Antoine Zimmermann
• [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Matteo Brunati
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• [ALL] Agenda 9 March telecon 1100 EST Guus Schreiber

Monday, 7 March 2011

• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Alex Hall
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] Jeremy Carroll
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Mischa Tuffield
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? Andy Seaborne
• RDF-ISSUE-13 (RDF XMLLiterals): Review RDF XML Literals [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Nathan
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Ivan Herman
• Re: [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Nathan
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Ivan Herman
• [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Michael Hausenblas
• Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Ivan Herman
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Andy Seaborne
• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Manu Sporny

Sunday, 6 March 2011

• Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Andy Seaborne
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Nathan
• Generic "Graph" Use Cases Nathan
• Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements Richard Cyganiak
• [JSON] Survey for design requirements Manu Sporny
• Re: RDF datasets and graph literals Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF datasets and graph literals Nathan
• Re: RDF datasets and graph literals Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Steve Harris
• RDF datasets and graph literals Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Andy Seaborne
• Re: should we standardize things not yet widely deployed? Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Andy Seaborne
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: should we standardize things not yet widely deployed? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: should we standardize things not yet widely deployed? Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Ivan Herman
• Re: [Turtle] Collecting the proposals Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Pat Hayes
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Steve Harris
• should we standardize things not yet widely deployed? Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Turtle] Collecting the proposals Sandro Hawke

Saturday, 5 March 2011

• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): deprecate language tags? Sandro Hawke
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• [Turtle] Collecting the proposals Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• [Graphs] Use cases Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks] Ivan Herman
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Pat Hayes
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-10 (Deprecation): Look if there are RDF(S) notions that are to be deprecated [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-9 (Complete Semantics): Inference rules are incomplete in the RDF Semantics [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-8 (IRI vs URI): Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-7 (Leftover issues): Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF-ISSUE-6 (RDF Errata): Handling RDF Errata [Cleanup tasks] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Steve Harris
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Sandro Hawke
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Pat Hayes

Friday, 4 March 2011

• Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] Nathan
• RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Lee Feigenbaum
• Regrets for next week. Fabien Gandon
• Re: regrets for the next two telecons David Wood
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Nathan
• regrets for the next two telecons Pat Hayes
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Sandro Hawke
• Re: Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Richard Cyganiak
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle Nathan
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle David Wood
• Re: Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Sandro Hawke
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle Nathan
• Re: The Sound of Qurtle Ivan Herman
• The Sound of Qurtle Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Ivan Herman
• Semantics of Qurtle (N3 vs TriG), Graph Literals again. Sandro Hawke

Thursday, 3 March 2011

• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Steve Harris
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Steve Harris
• Re: [GRAPHS] FYI: VoID vocabulary just published Nathan
• Re: [GRAPHS] FYI: VoID vocabulary just published Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [GRAPHS] FYI: VoID vocabulary just published Richard Cyganiak
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Andy Seaborne
• Re: a quick remark about blank nodes Richard Cyganiak
• [GRAPHS] FYI: VoID vocabulary just published Ivan Herman
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Richard Cyganiak
• Miscellaneous tasks for the RDF WG (Action-18) Ivan Herman
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Nathan
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats Andy Seaborne
• Re: a quick remark about blank nodes Nathan
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Andy Seaborne
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Andy Seaborne
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Steve Harris
• Re: [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Steve Harris
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Steve Harris
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Pat Hayes
• a quick remark about blank nodes Pat Hayes
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Pat Hayes
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Sandro Hawke
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. David Wood
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Nathan
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Nathan
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Pat Hayes
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Pat Hayes
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Gavin Carothers

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Richard Cyganiak
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Nathan
• Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Nathan
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Richard Cyganiak
• A modest proposal concerning blank nodes. Pat Hayes
• Minutes March 3rd Meeting Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott)
• [Turtle] Two formats (was: Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope David Wood
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Nathan
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope David Wood
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-4 (Deprecate N-Triples): Do we depecate N-Triples and use Turtle instead? David Wood
• Re: RDF-ISSUE-4 (Deprecate N-Triples): Do we depecate N-Triples and use Turtle instead? David Wood
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Pat Hayes
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Nathan
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Sandro Hawke
• Re: Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Alex Hall
• Re: [Turtle] Existing data , existing code. Nathan
• Turtle, Qurtle, Super-Turtle, N-Triple, N-Quads, Trig - BC and Scope Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Existing data , existing code. Alex Hall
• RDF-ISSUE-4 (Deprecate N-Triples): Do we depecate N-Triples and use Turtle instead? RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [Turtle] Existing data , existing code. Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Misc initial thoughts Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Alex Hall
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST Thomas Steiner
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle David Wood
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST Pierre-Antoine Champin
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Sandro Hawke
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. David Wood
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Fabien Gandon
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. David Wood
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Nathan
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Fabien Gandon
• Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Antoine Zimmermann
• [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose. Fabien Gandon
• Re: bang ! in turtle Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: bang ! in turtle Steve Harris
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Steve Harris
• Re: [JSON] Initial comments Matteo Brunati
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Fabien Gandon
• Re: bang ! in turtle Pierre-Antoine Champin
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Andy Seaborne
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Pat Hayes
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST Souripriya Das
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Nathan

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

• [GRAPHS] One graph to bind them all ? Fabien Gandon
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Pat Hayes
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Nathan
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time David Wood
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Nathan
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Nathan
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time David Wood
• Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Pat Hayes
• Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec Andy Seaborne
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST David Wood
• Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: bang ! in turtle Andy Seaborne
• Re: bang ! in turtle Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: bang ! in turtle Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: bang ! in turtle Yves Raimond
• Re: bang ! in turtle Andy Seaborne
• Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec Nathan
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Dan Brickley
• Re: bang ! in turtle Andy Seaborne
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Yves Raimond
• [TURTLE] Extending Turtle before Rec Sandro Hawke
• Re: [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Dan Brickley
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Pat Hayes
• Re: bang ! in turtle Antoine Zimmermann
• [Turtle] Re: bang ! in turtle Ivan Herman
• Re: bang ! in turtle Yves Raimond
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: bang ! in turtle Nathan
• bang ! in turtle Nathan
• Re: [ALL] Agenda telecon 2 Mar 11am EST David Wood
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Andy Seaborne
• Re: [GRAPHS] g-box - abstraction or concrete? Ivan Herman
• Re: Graphs and Being and Time Nathan

Last message date: Thursday, 31 March 2011 23:08:19 UTC