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

Thursday, 28 February 2002

• Re: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)] Pat Hayes
• Re: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)] Jim Hendler
• Re: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon Ian Horrocks
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Jos De_Roo
• semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)] Dan Connolly
• ALL: Re: Next steps (Action: all) Jim Hendler
• Teleconf regrets for7 March Jonathan Dale
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Leo Obrst
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Jonathan Dale
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• joining late... Leo Obrst
• Webont usecase - uniquestatic property Libby Miller
• Intro for new (alternate) member to WebOnt larry.eshelman@philips.com
• Introduction Evan Wallace
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Ian Horrocks
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Ian Horrocks
• possible regrets for today's telecon Marwan Sabbouh
• http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/mm/webont/ Dieter Fensel
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Guus Schreiber
• F2F: registration page available Frank van Harmelen

Wednesday, 27 February 2002

• RE: REQDOC: Need final input! Smith, Ned
• Re: REQDOC: Changes from last version Jeff Heflin
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Jeff Heflin
• Re: REQDOC: Changes from last version Deborah McGuinness
• Re: REQDOC: recommended change (not copyedit) Jeff Heflin
• Re: REQDOC: Copy-editing comments (long, boring to non-editors) Jeff Heflin
• Re: REQDOC: Changes from last version Jeff Heflin
• Re: ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon Mike Dean
• Re: REQDOC: Need final input! Jonathan Borden
• RE: REQDOC: Need final input! Smith, Ned
• RE: REQDOC: Need final input! Smith, Ned

Tuesday, 26 February 2002

• Re: REQDOC: Need final input! Jim Hendler
• Re: REQDOC: Need final input! Dan Connolly
• Re: REQDOC: Changes from last version Deborah McGuinness
• Re: REQDOC: Changes from last version Frank van Harmelen
• Re: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• REQDOC: Changes from last version Jeff Heflin
• Re: ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon Jim Hendler
• Re: ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon Libby Miller
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Ian Horrocks
• REQDOC: recommended change (not copyedit) Jim Hendler
• REQDOC: Copy-editing comments (long, boring to non-editors) Jim Hendler
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Jim Hendler
• ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon Guus Schreiber
• REQDOC: Working Drafts and Note (W3C Adv Board Resolution) Jim Hendler
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Ian Horrocks
• REQDOC: New Version. Please read by Thursday Jeff Heflin
• Re: REQDOC: closed worlds Frank van Harmelen
• AW: AW: AW: Lexical representations Raphael Volz
• Re: AW: AW: Lexical representations Ian Horrocks
• AW: AW: Lexical representations Raphael Volz
• Re: AW: Lexical representations Ian Horrocks
• Re: REQDOC: closed worlds Deborah McGuinness
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Jim Hendler
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Pat Hayes
• Re: Next steps (Action: all) Pat Hayes
• Re: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Pat Hayes
• REQDOC: closed worlds Frank van Harmelen
• Names in ontologies (was: Re: Lexical representations) Pat Hayes

Monday, 25 February 2002

• ADMIN: reqdoc procedure Guus Schreiber
• Next steps (Action: all) Guus Schreiber
• REQDOC: Need final input! Jeff Heflin
• AW: Lexical representations Raphael Volz

Sunday, 24 February 2002

• Re: Proposed addition to use-cases document Ora Lassila

Saturday, 23 February 2002

• Proposed addition to use-cases document Smith, Ned

Friday, 22 February 2002

• Re: REQDOC: Lynn's secret comments (LONG) Jos De_Roo
• Re: Lexical representations Leo Obrst
• Re: REQDOC: Lynn's secret comments (LONG) Jim Hendler
• REQDOC: Lynn's secret comments (LONG) Lynn Andrea Stein
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Guus Schreiber
• Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Guus Schreiber
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Guus Schreiber
• Re: Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Lexical representations Nick Gibbins
• RE: APOLOGY to WOWG Jeremy Carroll
• RE: Lexical representations Jeremy Carroll
• RE: Lexical representations Jeremy Carroll
• with some delay the video of our first f2f Dieter Fensel
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Pat Hayes
• Re: pls cite DMOZ next to Ontoweb Pat Hayes
• Re: proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement. Pat Hayes
• Re: Lexical representations Pat Hayes
• Still no paradox (was: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.) Pat Hayes
• Re: APOLOGY to WOWG Ora Lassila

Thursday, 21 February 2002

• Re: proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement. Leo Obrst
• Re: Lexical representations Leo Obrst
• Re: APOLOGY to WOWG Leo Obrst
• Re: Lexical representations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Lexical representations Dan Connolly
• Lexical representations Jeremy Carroll
• pls cite DMOZ next to Ontoweb Dan Connolly
• Re: Layering the Semantic Web: Problems and Directions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement. Jim Hendler
• minutes: WebOnt Telecon Feb 21 (for review) Dan Connolly
• APOLOGY to WOWG Jim Hendler
• Re: proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement. Mike Dean
• proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement. Pat Hayes
• RE: The Peter paradox isn't. Ora Lassila
• RE: The Peter paradox isn't. Pat Hayes
• ADMIN: reqdoc scheduling Lynn Andrea Stein
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Nick Gibbins
• Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Lynn Andrea Stein
• Telecon Guus Schreiber
• Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Dan Connolly
• Re: REQDOC: New Draft Mike Dean
• Re: REQDOC: HTML structure is broken Jonathan Dale
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Pat Hayes
• Layering the Semantic Web: Problems and Directions Graham Klyne
• Re: AW: REQDOC: Removal of digital keys Mike Dean
• Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Jim Hendler
• Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Lynn Andrea Stein
• RE: The Peter paradox isn't. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: The Peter paradox isn't. Jonathan Borden
• RE: The Peter paradox isn't. Jeremy Carroll
• Re: The Peter paradox isn't. Jonathan Borden
• RE: The Peter paradox isn't. Jeremy Carroll
• Introduction: Jonathan Borden Jonathan Borden
• REQDOC: New Draft Jeff Heflin
• XML Considered Harmful Ora Lassila
• REQDOC: HTML structure is broken Ora Lassila

Wednesday, 20 February 2002

• WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond! Jim Hendler
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Excuse for tomorrows' telcon Raphael Volz
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Jeff Heflin
• AW: REQDOC: Removal of digital keys Raphael Volz
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Jeff Heflin
• Re: ALL HANDS - agenda/logistics - Telecon Feb 21 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Reqs doc closure (was Re: ALL HANDS - agenda/logistics - Telecon Feb 21) Jim Hendler
• RE: ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol Jeremy Carroll
• ALL HANDS - agenda/logistics - Telecon Feb 21 Jim Hendler
• Re: The Peter paradox isn't. Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 19 February 2002

• Re: The Peter paradox isn't. Pat Hayes
• REQDOC: missing/implicit WebOnt requirements Mike Dean
• U Maryland Mail problems Jim Hendler
• Re: The Peter paradox isn't. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Jeremy Carroll
• Re: UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document) Ora Lassila
• Re: ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol Jonathan Dale
• REQDOC: Change List from Editors Jonathan Dale
• Re: incorporating constructs with no formal meaning (was ....) Ora Lassila

Monday, 18 February 2002

• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Dan Brickley
• Re: ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol Guus Schreiber
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Jim Hendler
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Dan Brickley
• Re: ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol Guus Schreiber
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Deborah McGuinness
• Re: incorporating constructs with no formal meaning (was ....) Pat Hayes
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Pat Hayes
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Pat Hayes
• incorporating constructs with no formal meaning (was ....) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Ora Lassila

Sunday, 17 February 2002

• Re: UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document) Frank van Harmelen
• UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document) Ora Lassila
• Re: use cases: pls elaborate portal use case a bit, etc. Jim Hendler
• Re: On Standardization of the Web Ontology Language - Trends & Controversies Section Jim Hendler

Saturday, 16 February 2002

• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Jeff Heflin
• Re: use cases: pls elaborate portal use case a bit, etc. Jeff Heflin
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Jeff Heflin
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Jeff Heflin
• Re: Requirements Document Jeff Heflin
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: On Standardization of the Web Ontology Language - Trends & Controversies Section Frank van Harmelen
• On Standardization of the Web Ontology Language - Trends & Controversies Section Steffen Staab
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Pat Hayes
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: reification Pat Hayes
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Smith, Michael K

Friday, 15 February 2002

• Re: AW: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Leo Obrst
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Saturday, 16 February 2002

• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Frank van Harmelen
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Frank van Harmelen

Friday, 15 February 2002

• The Peter paradox isn't. Pat Hayes
• AW: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Raphael Volz
• Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document Pat Hayes
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Pat Hayes
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: reification Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Pat Hayes
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Dan Connolly
• Re: ADMIN: 3rd face to face - July 1-2, 2002 - San Francisco, CA, USA, req. for info on 4th f2f dates. Deborah McGuinness
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Smith, Michael K
• Re: UPDATE: examples of layering Dan Connolly
• Re: Requirements Document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Pat Hayes
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Dan Connolly
• RE: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Smith, Michael K
• Re: ADMIN: 3rd face to face (regrets) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ADMIN: 3rd face to face - July 1-2, 2002 - San Francisco, CA, USA, req. for info on 4th f2f dates. Jim Hendler
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Smith, Michael K
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Jim Hendler
• UPDATE: examples of layering Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Pat Hayes
• Re: Antwort: Re: Fwd: logics of RDF Pat Hayes
• Re: Antwort: Re: Fwd: logics of RDF Pat Hayes
• Re: How to layer the semantic web properly? Pat Hayes
• Re: layering (was Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...) Pat Hayes
• Re: antifoundation, flat, wellfounded Pat Hayes
• Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ... Pat Hayes
• RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Pat Hayes
• Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Pat Hayes
• REQDOC:stating closed worlds Pat Hayes
• Re: REQDOC: reification Pat Hayes
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Pat Hayes
• RDF/XML and charter - WG please note (was UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL) Jim Hendler

Thursday, 14 February 2002

• Re: Requirements Document Jim Hendler
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Leo Obrst
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Jim Hendler
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Dan Connolly
• Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources Dan Brickley
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Smith, Michael K
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirements Document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• REQDOC: reification Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• REQDOC: ontologies as resources Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirements Document Jeff Heflin
• RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Ziv Hellman
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Deborah McGuinness
• Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Dieter Fensel
• Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Ludger van Elst
• Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Dan Connolly

Wednesday, 13 February 2002

• UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• TIME CRITICAL: (All members) Review of Requirements document Jim Hendler
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jim Hendler
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Dieter Fensel
• Re: Requirements Document (pubrules stuff) Dan Connolly
• Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document Dan Connolly
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Dan Connolly
• use cases: pls elaborate portal use case a bit, etc. Dan Connolly
• "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro Dan Connolly
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jim Hendler
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document Dieter Fensel
• RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jim Hendler
• RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Ziv Hellman
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jim Hendler
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jos De_Roo

Thursday, 14 February 2002

• Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Frank van Harmelen

Wednesday, 13 February 2002

• DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Jim Hendler

Tuesday, 12 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document Frank van Harmelen
• UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• UPDATE: subject line meaning Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 11 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Leo Obrst
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Leo Obrst

Sunday, 10 February 2002

• ADMIN f2f location for July pending Jim Hendler
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Jim Hendler
• ADMIN: No telecon Feb 14 Jim Hendler
• MISC: Where's the chair? Jim Hendler
• record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002 (corrected based on comments) Ziv Hellman
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Jos De_Roo
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Saturday, 9 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Dan Connolly
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Jos De_Roo
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Dieter Fensel
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Jos De_Roo
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 8 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Jos De_Roo
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Dan Connolly
• Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document Dan Connolly
• ADMIN: Re: preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002 Guus Schreiber
• Re: URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirements Document (SOTD) Dan Connolly
• URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Dan Connolly
• Re: Requirements Document Dan Connolly
• Re: Requirements Document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirements Document Dan Connolly
• regrets for 14th and 21st February Telecons ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com

Thursday, 7 February 2002

• Re: preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002 Jeff Heflin
• regrets in advance for upcoming meetings Deborah McGuinness
• Re: Requirements Document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002 Ziv Hellman
• RE: I have to apologize for the phone conference this day Stephen Buswell
• I have to apologize for the phone conference this day Dieter Fensel
• Requirements Document Jeff Heflin
• regrets 2002-02-07 telecon Libby Miller
• UPDATE: longer version of layering document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Regrets 2/7 TelCon Raphael Volz

Wednesday, 6 February 2002

• ADMIN: teleconf prep Guus Schreiber
• Re: ADMIN: Ageanda/logistics Feb 7 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ADMIN: Ageanda/logistics Feb 7 Guus Schreiber

Monday, 4 February 2002

• Registration for KR2002 - Knowledge Representation Conference Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: Apologies for next two meetings Jeremy Carroll

Sunday, 3 February 2002

• Re: Antwort: Re: Fwd: logics of RDF Ian Horrocks
• regrets 2/7 meeting Leo Obrst
• Fwd: Call for participation for the W3C workshop on delivery context Jim Hendler

Saturday, 2 February 2002

• Apologies for next two meetings Jonathan Dale

Friday, 1 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: document on layering OWL on top of RDF Sandro Hawke

Saturday, 2 February 2002

• Re: Antwort: Re: Fwd: logics of RDF Frank van Harmelen

Friday, 1 February 2002

• Re: UPDATE: document on layering OWL on top of RDF Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: UPDATE: document on layering OWL on top of RDF Sandro Hawke
• ADMIN: Ammend Minutes of 1/31 telecon Jim Hendler

Last message date: Thursday, 28 February 2002 18:02:17 UTC