w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from February 2002 by author

Aaron Swartz

• Minutes for 2002-02-22 RDF Core Telecon (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: the S-B problem and what to do about it. (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: telecon at the f2f (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (issue background) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (Pat's questions) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (core issue) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Thursday, 14 February)

Bill de hÓra

• RE: possible way out of maze? [was: Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• migrating from M&S (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: Reification puzzles (was: RE: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)

Brian McBride

• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: possible way out of maze? [was: Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: the S-B problem and what to do about it. (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Fwd: Addition to Pubrules: New Pubrules Checker Available (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Datatypes: unhappy of Bristol (Sunday, 24 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: Test cases (entailment) ... Was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-22 (Friday, 22 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Thursday, 21 February)
• telecon at the f2f (Wednesday, 20 February)
• weekly call for agenda items (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Concerns about reification (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: property formerly known as rdf:value (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Datatyping use cases (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15 (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Thursday, 14 February)
• to pull or not to pull [was: Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Thursday, 14 February)
• ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: rdfms-uri-substructure: some clarifying advice [was: A collection of issue resolutions] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• call for agenda items (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• F2F Objectives and Agenda (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Tuesday, 12 February)
• A collection of issue resolutions (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Reification: proposed resolution (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) (Monday, 11 February)
• Outstanding Issues (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: BagID issue link (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V5 (skippable) (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Datatyping Summary V5 (skippable) (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concerns (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PRISM and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: PRISM and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Fwd: Connectivity at the Tech Plenary (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Monday, 4 February)
• Model theory for b-nodes [was: Re: reification test case] (Monday, 4 February)
• Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• reification test case (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Sunday, 3 February)

bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

• Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-22 (Thursday, 21 February)
• Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-08 (Thursday, 7 February)

Dan Brickley

• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• regrets and reification (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Friday, 8 February)
• MT publication, dropped ball (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)

Dan Connolly

• Re: a few questions about literals (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Monday, 18 February)
• a theory of rdf:Bags (Sunday, 17 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Wednesday, 13 February)
• rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure, again [was: Outstanding Issues] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: rdfms-uri-substructure: some clarifying advice [was: A collection of issue resolutions] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: rdfms-uri-substructure: some clarifying advice [was: A collection of issue resolutions] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• rdfms-uri-substructure: some clarifying advice [was: A collection of issue resolutions] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concerns (Friday, 8 February)
• why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Friday, 1 February)

Daniel W. Connolly

• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• B5 storage: why did it go away? [was: why S...] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)

Dave Beckett

• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-15 (Saturday, 16 February)
• RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-15 (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure [was Re: Outstanding Issues] (Monday, 11 February)
• xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Dublin Core and multiple element concerns (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: scope of parseType [was: Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-)] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: scope of parseType [was: Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-)] (Tuesday, 5 February)

Eric Miller

• Re: telecon at the f2f (Friday, 22 February)
• happy valentines day, New RDF Model Theory Working Draft published (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Thursday, 7 February)

Frank Manola

• Re: telecon at the f2f (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: weekly call for agenda items (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: weekly call for agenda items (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Concerns about reification (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Provenance usage scenario - releaseTime (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Concerns about reification (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Wednesday, 13 February)
• reification "subagenda" (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: migrating from M&S (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• new Primer draft (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Some words about formal semantics (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Primer status and Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: reification test case (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Sunday, 3 February)
• Primer status and Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Saturday, 2 February)

Graham Klyne

• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Proposal for fragment identifiers in RDF (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: A concern with the Datatyping proposal (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: XML Base - discussion + test cases (Tuesday, 19 February)
• A concern with the Datatyping proposal (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: XML Base - discussion + test cases (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (Pat's questions) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Datatyping namespaces (was: Re: Datatyping use cases) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Provenance usage scenario - releaseTime (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: linking reification to reified (was: Re: reification "subagenda") (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Thursday, 14 February)
• Datatyping (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• Minutes, 2002-02-08 teleconference (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Datatyping and idioms (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Some words about formal semantics (Thursday, 7 February)
• Some words about formal semantics (Thursday, 7 February)
• type/dtype/subclassing and range/subproperties (Thursday, 7 February)
• Datatyping and idioms (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Reification puzzles (was: RE: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: first guess rdfr-theory [was:Re: reification test case] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Primer status and Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: Datatypes: the Bermuda Triangle, and how to fly over it. (Friday, 1 February)
• Datatyping, text case (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V3 (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Datatypes: the Bermuda Triangle, and how to fly over it. (Friday, 1 February)

Jan Grant

• Test cases (entailment) ... Was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-22 (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Friday, 15 February)

Jeremy Carroll

• Datatypes: unhappy of Bristol (Saturday, 23 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Saturday, 23 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Friday, 22 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdf-charmod-uris (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdf-charmod-literals (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: XML Base - discussion + test cases (Tuesday, 19 February)
• XML Base - discussion + test cases (Tuesday, 19 February)
• BagID issue link (Friday, 8 February)
• BagID issue link (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concerns (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• ACTION 2002-01-24#4 responses on datatyping (Wednesday, 6 February)
• RE: Datatyping, text case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: Reification puzzles (was: RE: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: Monotonicity (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: Datatypes and xml:lang (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)

John Cowan

• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Monday, 25 February)

Jos De_Roo

• Re: a few questions about literals (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Datatypes: unhappy of Bristol (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: a theory of rdf:Bags (Sunday, 17 February)
• Re: property formerly known as rdf:value (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: One final step to datatyping convergence and closure? (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V5 (skippable) (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: type/dtype/subclassing and range/subproperties (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Reification puzzles (was: RE: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• first guess rdfr-theory [was:Re: reification test case] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)

jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com

• Re: Datatyping namespaces (was: Re: Datatyping use cases) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• entailment test cases and namespace entailment (Friday, 15 February)
• doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Sunday, 10 February)
• simple entailment testcase [Was: Re: reification test case] (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: reification test case (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: reification test case (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Sunday, 3 February)
• why not take just the 2 ??? (Saturday, 2 February)
• RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-01 (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Datatypes: the Bermuda Triangle, and how to fly over it. (Friday, 1 February)

Mark Davis

• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Monday, 25 February)

Martin Duerst

• Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Wednesday, 27 February)

Martyn Horner

• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)

Mike Dean

• Datatyping Ontology (Tuesday, 26 February)

Misha.Wolf@reuters.com

• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Monday, 25 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Monday, 25 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Saturday, 23 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Friday, 22 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Thursday, 21 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Thursday, 21 February)

Pat Hayes

• a few questions about literals (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• possible way out of maze? [was: Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Adding lrange to the recent proposal (was: Re: the S-B problem and what to do about it.) (Monday, 25 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Monday, 25 February)
• RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: Datatypes: unhappy of Bristol (Sunday, 24 February)
• revised datatyping proposal, now twopence colored (Sunday, 24 February)
• the S-B problem and what to do about it. (Sunday, 24 February)
• revised datatyping proposal (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: dizzying datatypes discussions [was: Occam-slashed datatypes] (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: "Datatyping for Dummies" (or Occam's Razor Slash Fest) (Friday, 22 February)
• Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Even more simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: "Datatyping for Dummies" (or Occam's Razor Slash Fest) (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Subtler simplified datatypes. (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• around and around and around the table [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Subtler simplified datatypes. (Thursday, 21 February)
• answers to quiz (was: Re: simplified datatyping proposal) (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Subtler simplified datatypes. (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: weekly call for agenda items (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: weekly call for agenda items (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Concerns about reification (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: Concerns about reification (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (Pat's questions) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Literal subjects can be tidy (was: Re: Use case for tidy literal subjects (ignore if not interested)) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Datatyping namespaces (was: Re: Datatyping use cases) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (core issue) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: a theory of rdf:Bags (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: property formerly known as rdf:value (Monday, 18 February)
• property formerly known as rdf:value (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• linking reification to reified (was: Re: reification "subagenda") (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: reification "subagenda" (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: to pull or not to pull [was: Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Entailment versus implication (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: BagID issue link (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: type/dtype/subclassing and range/subproperties (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Entailment versus implication (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: One final step to datatyping convergence and closure? (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: reification decision process intro (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: PRISM and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: ACTION 2002-01-24#4 responses on datatyping (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: reification test case (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Wednesday, 6 February)
• RE: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Reification thing questions (was: Re: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Reification puzzles (was: RE: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Identity of things (was: Re: reification test case) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Reject change to rdf:value (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Monday, 4 February)
• Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) (Monday, 4 February)

Patrick Stickler

• Datatyping "code" for testing and consideration (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: the S-B problem and what to do about it. (Monday, 25 February)
• Some experimental CWM rules for datatyping idioms (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: "Datatyping for Dummies" (or Occam's Razor Slash Fest) (Saturday, 23 February)
• Four thousand words on datatyping... (Saturday, 23 February)
• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: "Datatyping for Dummies" (or Occam's Razor Slash Fest) (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Friday, 22 February)
• Re: "Datatyping for Dummies" answers to quiz (Thursday, 21 February)
• "Datatyping for Dummies" answers to quiz (Thursday, 21 February)
• "Datatyping for Dummies" (or Occam's Razor Slash Fest) (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Subtler simplified datatypes. (Thursday, 21 February)
• FW: Even more simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• FW: Even more simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• FW: Even more simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: Subtler simplified datatypes. (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Thursday, 21 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: simplified datatyping proposal (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Attempt to recap/summarize (was Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Literal subjects can be tidy (was: Re: Use case for tidy literal subjects (ignore if not interested)) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Datatyping namespaces (was: Re: Datatyping use cases) (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)] (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Exact ranges and using S-B (Sunday, 17 February)
• Re: Exact ranges and using S-B (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Datatyping use cases (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-15 (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Datatyping use cases (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: property formerly known as rdf:value (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: property formerly known as rdf:value (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Datatyping use cases (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Saturday, 16 February)
• More fun with xml:lang (Saturday, 16 February)
• Interpretation Use Cases for Datatyping (and Union to the rescue) (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Saturday, 16 February)
• Use case for tidy literal subjects (ignore if not interested) (Saturday, 16 February)
• Datatyping use cases (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Parser mods to support rdf:dtype and rdf:lform (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15) (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15 (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: to pull or not to pull [was: Re: Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure, again [was: Outstanding Issues] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: A collection of issue resolutions (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Reification: proposed resolution (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure [was Re: Outstanding Issues] (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Entailment versus implication (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Outstanding Issues (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: One final step to datatyping convergence and closure? (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: BagID issue link (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V5 (skippable) (Saturday, 9 February)
• One final step to datatyping convergence and closure? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• FW: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document. (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• FW: Reification thing questions (Tuesday, 5 February)
• A basis for convergence and closure? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: datatyping summary (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: reification test case (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Tidy literal nodes incompatable with current MT? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Entailment versus implication (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: For untidiness ... (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Model theory for b-nodes [was: Re: reification test case] (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: reification test case (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: why not take just the 2 ??? (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: Datatypes: the Bermuda Triangle, and how to fly over it. (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V2 (Friday, 1 February)

patrick.stickler@nokia.com

• Re: Datatyping Summary V5 (skippable) (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Datatyping and idioms (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: type/dtype/subclassing and range/subproperties (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Datatypes Convergence (Thursday, 7 February)

Ronald Daniel

• RE: possible way out of maze? [was: Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstan ding Issues ]] (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon) (Saturday, 16 February)
• RE: Provenance usage scenario - releaseTime (Saturday, 16 February)
• Provenance usage scenario - releaseTime (Friday, 15 February)
• RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: Dublin Core and multiple element concern (Thursday, 7 February)
• RE: PRISM and multiple element concern - CORRECTION (Tuesday, 5 February)
• PRISM and multiple element concern (Tuesday, 5 February)
• RE: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Sum mary V4] (Tuesday, 5 February)

Sergey Melnik

• Re: Occam-slashed datatypes (Friday, 22 February)
• Concerns about reification (Friday, 15 February)
• Exact ranges and using S-B (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: doing provenance in RDF 1.0 clarified (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: A basis for convergence and closure? (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: summary of reification? (Wednesday, 6 February)
• summary of reification? (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Monotonicity (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary V4 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Datatyping Summary (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: For untidiness ... (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Monotonicity (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Tidy literal nodes incompatable with current MT? (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: Datatypes: the Bermuda Triangle, and how to fly over it. (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Datatypes and xml:lang (Friday, 1 February)
• Flower Power and Datatyping ~:-) (Friday, 1 February)

Last message date: Thursday, 28 February 2002 16:57:07 UTC