www-webont-wg@w3.org from April 2002 by date

Wednesday, 1 May 2002

• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Dan Connolly
• ADMIN: May 9 telecon cancelled Jim Hendler
• ADMIN: WOWG Telecon Agenda, May 2 Jim Hendler
• WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Frank van Harmelen

Tuesday, 30 April 2002

• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Ann: Web Services Architecture Requirements published (fwd) Jim Hendler
• Ann: Web Services Architecture Requirements published (fwd) Dan Brickley
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Jos De_Roo

Monday, 29 April 2002

• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Jeremy Carroll
• ADMIN: Regrets 5/2 Smith, Michael K
• RE: ISSUE: Semantic Layering Smith, Michael K
• Issue: Language Compliance Levels Jim Hendler
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Dan Connolly
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Dan Connolly
• RE: SEM: Layering Smith, Michael K
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness

Sunday, 28 April 2002

• AW: AW: Conformance Layers in WebOnt Raphael Volz
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Enrico Motta
• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Deborah McGuinness
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Ian Horrocks
• RE: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Ziv Hellman
• Re: TEST: sameBagAs testcase Jos De_Roo
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness

Saturday, 27 April 2002

• Re: [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Deborah McGuinness
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 26 April 2002

• Please ignore my message (was: Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples) Jim Hendler
• TEST: sameBagAs testcase Jos De_Roo
• Re: SEM: Layering jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• Telecon 25th April ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com
• Re: SEM: Layering Jeremy Carroll

Thursday, 25 April 2002

• Re: Webont April 25th Telecon - minutes for review. larry.eshelman@philips.com
• Webont April 25th Telecon - minutes for review. Libby Miller
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jim Hendler
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Regrets April 25 Telecon Stefan Decker
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jeremy Carroll
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Ian Horrocks
• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jonathan Borden
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• [Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Guus Schreiber
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• Re: LANG: owl:quote Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jonathan Borden
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jeremy Carroll
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jonathan Borden
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Smith, Michael K
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DTTF: my summary Jeremy Carroll
• DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• DTTF: my summary Jeremy Carroll
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Guus Schreiber
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• [Fwd: Re: Re: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• [Fwd: AW: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• [Fwd: Re: LANG: compliance levels] Frank van Harmelen
• LANG: compliance levels Frank van Harmelen
• Re: regrets april 25 telecon Frank van Harmelen
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: LANG: compliance levels Ziv Hellman
• REGRETS: 4/25 Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston)
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jonathan Borden
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes

Wednesday, 24 April 2002

• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Mike Dean
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• REGRETS: April 25 telecon Jeff Heflin
• Re: partial regrets for 4/25 jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach Jonathan Borden
• LANG: owl:quote Smith, Michael K
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jonathan Borden
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jonathan Borden
• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? Enrico Motta
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• RE: ADMIN: Issue submission and format Smith, Michael K
• Re: ADMIN: please check A'dam ftf roll-call Dan Connolly
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• regrets april 25 telecon herman.ter.horst@philips.com
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• partial regrets for 4/25 Pat Hayes
• ISSUE: uniform treatment of literal/data values Dan Connolly
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Pat Hayes
• AGENDA: April 25 telecon Guus Schreiber
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Massimo Marchiori
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jim Hendler
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• ADMIN: please check A'dam ftf roll-call Guus Schreiber
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jos De_Roo
• GUIDE: proposal for target results Guus Schreiber
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jeremy Carroll
• RE: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jeremy Carroll
• WOWG Request to invite Observers Jeremy Carroll
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Guus Schreiber

Tuesday, 23 April 2002

• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Ian Horrocks
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Dan Connolly
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Jeremy Carroll
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Pat Hayes
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Jos De_Roo
• Dark triples: call for order Massimo Marchiori
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Jos De_Roo
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Jeremy Carroll
• RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Jeremy Carroll
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Dan Connolly
• Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Jeremy Carroll
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Ian Horrocks
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) Ian Horrocks
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ACTION: task force unasserted triples Guus Schreiber
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: circular primitive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ADMIN: Re: minutes for review: WebOnt April 18 Telecon Ian Horrocks
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 22 April 2002

• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensiveentailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• SEM: circular primitive vs. defined was Re: was: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jonathan Borden
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jeremy Carroll
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: re-raising an old issue Jeremy Carroll
• RE: ISSUES: new issues doc Jeremy Carroll
• RE: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jeremy Carroll

Saturday, 20 April 2002

• Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Pat Hayes

Friday, 19 April 2002

• re-raising an old issue Pat Hayes
• SEM: Layering Smith, Michael K
• Regrets for 4/25 telecon Jonathan Dale
• ISSUES: new issues doc Smith, Michael K
• RE: ISSUES - how to submit Smith, Michael K
• Bernard Horan -- bio Bernard Horan
• new issues - informal list Jeremy Carroll
• WOWG: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions Jeremy Carroll
• ISSUE: trust (from the public comments page) Jim Hendler
• RDF Core and Dark Triples (from RDF Core) Jim Hendler

Thursday, 18 April 2002

• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? Frank van Harmelen
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Pat Hayes
• RE: A way out of the "dark" Pat Hayes
• RE: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 Ziv Hellman
• minutes for review: WebOnt April 18 Telecon Dan Connolly
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Pat Hayes
• RE: WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f Ziv Hellman
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Ziv Hellman
• Re: A way out of the "dark" Pat Hayes
• Regrets 4/18 telecob Thompson, Lynne R
• Re: David Trastour
• Re: ADMIN: Jeff Heflin
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Pat Hayes
• Re: ADMIN: Jonathan Borden
• ADMIN: Download the archives? Christopher Welty
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Pat Hayes
• RE: ISSUES document Smith, Michael K
• Re: Clarification of f2f IRC log for minutes Dan Connolly
• RE: ADMIN: Said Tabet
• RE: A way out of the "dark" Massimo Marchiori
• RE: ADMIN: Libby Miller
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Jim Hendler
• ADMIN: WOWG telecon agenda update/change for 4/18 Jim Hendler
• RE: Problems with dark triples approach Jeremy Carroll
• LANG: compliance levels Frank van Harmelen
• Re: WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f Frank van Harmelen
• RE: ADMIN: Dieter Fensel
• RE: ftf2 record: roll call? Jeremy Carroll
• TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples Jeremy Carroll
• Clarification of f2f IRC log for minutes Jeremy Carroll
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach Jeremy Carroll
• RE: ADMIN: Stephen Buswell
• Closed Containers (was Re: ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon) Jeremy Carroll
• RE: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Jeremy Carroll
• SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples Jeremy Carroll
• WOWG: report from test breakout group at f2f Jeremy Carroll
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll
• Re: A way out of the "dark" Jos De_Roo
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Jos De_Roo
• Re: ADMIN: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
• A way out of the "dark" Massimo Marchiori
• Re: inference rule markup in W3C specs? Pat Hayes
• Re: ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes Pat Hayes

Wednesday, 17 April 2002

• Re: Problems with dark triples approach Pat Hayes
• RE: Dark triples motivation Dan Connolly
• Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 Pat Hayes
• RE: Dark triples motivation Pat Hayes
• RE: Dark triples motivation Pat Hayes
• Re: ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon Dan Connolly
• ftf2 record: roll call? Dan Connolly
• Re: Dark triples motivation Jonathan Borden
• Re: ADMIN: Frank van Harmelen
• Re: Problems with dark triples approach Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• LANG: frames and frame terminology herman.ter.horst@philips.com
• LANG: PrimitiveClass, DefinedClass herman.ter.horst@philips.com
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Deborah McGuinness
• Re: ADMIN: Deborah McGuinness
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Dan Connolly
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll
• Problems with dark triples approach Jeremy Carroll
• Re: Dark triples motivation Jonathan Borden
• Re: WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Jim Hendler
• ADMIN: Jim Hendler
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll
• ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics April 18 Telecon Jim Hendler
• WOWG: Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints Jeremy Carroll
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll
• RE: TEST: formalizing f2f decisions Jeremy Carroll
• Re: TEST: formalizing f2f decisions Jos De_Roo

Tuesday, 16 April 2002

• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Ian Horrocks
• Re: Dark triples motivation Dan Connolly
• Re: Dark triples motivation Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• TEST: formalizing f2f decisions Jeremy Carroll
• Applied Semantics, and Others Wants to Sell Us Shrink-wrap....(?) Stanton, John
• RE: WOWG: Potential new issues ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com
• RE: Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll

Monday, 15 April 2002

• Chris Welty - intro Christopher Welty
• Re: Dark triples motivation Jonathan Borden
• Re: Dark triples motivation Dan Connolly
• Re: Dark triples motivation Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Dark triples motivation Jeremy Carroll

Sunday, 7 April 2002

• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) Pat Hayes

Monday, 8 April 2002

• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list Pat Hayes
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Pat Hayes
• Solipsism is first-order Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL Pat Hayes
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list Pat Hayes
• RE: Moving forward Pat Hayes
• Re: Moving forward Pat Hayes

Sunday, 14 April 2002

• Re: WOWG: Potential new issues Frank van Harmelen
• RE: WOWG: Potential new issues Ziv Hellman
• ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes Jonathan Borden
• ISSUE: StructuredDatatypes Jonathan Borden

Friday, 12 April 2002

• MINUTES: 11 April 2002 telecon, for review Nick Gibbins
• WOWG: Welcome new member Jim Hendler
• Amsterdam f2f Issue ?? (cardinality constructs and levels) Stephen Buswell

Thursday, 11 April 2002

• Re: Amsterdam f2f issue 1 (UniqueProp-badname) Dan Connolly
• Amsterdam f2f issue 1 tim finin
• construct for closed lists [Was: AGENDA: April 11 telecon] Jos De_Roo
• RE: Apologies for April 11 telecon Trastour, David
• thinking about unasserted triples Jos De_Roo
• Antwort: WOWG: Potential new issues ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com
• Exhange langauge Jeremy Carroll
• Re: Apologies for April 11 telecon Libby Miller
• apologies for teleconf tonight Frank van Harmelen
• apologies in advance for april 18 and april 25 Deborah McGuinness

Wednesday, 10 April 2002

• Apologies for April 11 telecon Jonathan Dale
• AGENDA: April 11 telecon Guus Schreiber

Tuesday, 9 April 2002

• opposite spin on govt adoption of xml Deborah McGuinness
• WOWG: Potential new issues Jim Hendler
• MISC: A'dam ftf photos Guus Schreiber
• Teleconf facilities for today's WOWG. Massimo Marchiori
• suggestion - lunch get together at KR 2002 and next f2f Deborah McGuinness

Monday, 8 April 2002

• Re: F2F: Remote participation? Jim Hendler
• info concerning broad spread adoption of XML and by side effect daml/owl Deborah McGuinness
• RE: Ontology Naming Smith, Michael K
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Libby Miller
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Deborah McGuinness
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Libby Miller
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Deborah McGuinness
• Re: Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Deborah McGuinness
• Today's teleconference facilities for WOWG Massimo Marchiori
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Deborah McGuinness
• Re: LANG: What does "simpler" mean?/ Input for f2f Deborah McGuinness
• Re: AGENDA: A'dam ftf (draft) Deborah McGuinness
• Re: F2F: Remote participation? Deborah McGuinness

Sunday, 7 April 2002

• NEWS: Common Logic tim finin
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Dieter Fensel

Saturday, 6 April 2002

• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jos De_Roo
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Ian Horrocks
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jim Hendler
• NEWS: opencyc 0.6 released on sourceforge Tim Finin
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jos De_Roo

Friday, 5 April 2002

• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (fwd) Ian Horrocks
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal (fwd) Ian Horrocks
• RE: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Pat Hayes
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. Pat Hayes
• Re: F2F: Remote participation? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jonathan Borden
• RE: WOWG: first language proposal Jeremy Carroll
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jonathan Borden
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Jeff Heflin
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) Ian Horrocks
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Ian Horrocks
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (fwd) Ian Horrocks
• Re: SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Jeff Heflin
• Re: WOWG: first language proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• F2F: Remote participation? Jeff Heflin
• Re: LANG: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? Jeff Heflin
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Dan Connolly
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) Ian Horrocks
• Re: (SeWeb) Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? Frank Manola
• Re: TEST categorize test suites Ian Horrocks
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. Jeremy Carroll
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list Jonathan Borden
• Re: SEM DESIDERATA: my initial desiderata list Pat Hayes

Thursday, 4 April 2002

• WOWG: Welcome new member Jim Hendler
• JOKE: Re: Ontology Naming Jeremy Carroll
• Re: classes as instances Pat Hayes
• Re: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. Pat Hayes
• Ontology Naming Smith, Michael K
• RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night. Pat Hayes
• RE: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Jeremy Carroll
• Re: (SeWeb) Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? Pat Hayes
• Re: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Pat Hayes
• TEST: agenda for f2f breakout Jeremy Carroll
• Re: GUIDE: UML notations for OWL Leo Obrst

Wednesday, 3 April 2002

• GUIDE: UML notations for OWL Guus Schreiber

Tuesday, 2 April 2002

• LANG: What does "simpler" mean? Frank van Harmelen
• Re: Program Semantics -- Lexica, Logics, Ontologies, Semiotica, Syn-Taxonomies David Sallach
• WOWG: annotated version of first language proposal available Frank van Harmelen
• WOWG: ADMIN: Telecon Cancelled - APril 4, 2002 Jim Hendler
• RE: LANG: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? Jeremy Carroll
• RE: LANG, SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL Pat Hayes

Monday, 1 April 2002

• Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? Jos De_Roo
• Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? Jeff Heflin
• Re: LANG: pushing daml:collection was: Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter? Jeff Heflin
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies,thesauri, lexicons? Frank Manola
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? Bill Andersen
• Program Semantics: available ontologies, taxonomies AND logics? David Sallach
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? Bill Andersen
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? Frank van Harmelen
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? John F. Sowa
• SEM: Face-to-Face version of approaches document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Admin: Notes Telecon 28 March Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons? Bill Andersen
• Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri,lexicons? asun Gomez-perez

Last message date: Tuesday, 30 April 2002 22:31:06 UTC