Teleconf regrets for7 March
joining late...
Webont usecase - uniquestatic property
Intro for new (alternate) member to WebOnt
Introduction
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/mm/webont/
F2F: registration page available
REQDOC: Changes from last version
REQDOC: recommended change (not copyedit)
REQDOC: Copy-editing comments (long, boring to non-editors)
ADMIN: agenda/logistics Feb 28 telecon
REQDOC: Working Drafts and Note (W3C Adv Board Resolution)
REQDOC: New Version. Please read by Thursday
ADMIN: reqdoc procedure
Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
- Re: Next steps (Action: all)
REQDOC: Need final input!
- REQDOC: closed worlds
- Re: REQDOC: Need final input!
- RE: REQDOC: Need final input!
- RE: REQDOC: Need final input!
- RE: REQDOC: Need final input!
Proposed addition to use-cases document
Re: REQDOC: Lynn's secret comments (LONG)
with some delay the video of our first f2f
pls cite DMOZ next to Ontoweb
proposed rewording to 'tagging' requirement.
Telecon
Layering the Semantic Web: Problems and Directions
Introduction: Jonathan Borden
REQDOC: New Draft
XML Considered Harmful
REQDOC: HTML structure is broken
Excuse for tomorrows' telcon
ALL HANDS - agenda/logistics - Telecon Feb 21
- Re: ALL HANDS - agenda/logistics - Telecon Feb 21
- minutes: WebOnt Telecon Feb 21 (for review)
- Lexical representations
- Re: Lexical representations
REQDOC: missing/implicit WebOnt requirements
U Maryland Mail problems
REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
- ADMIN: reqdoc scheduling
- Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
ADMIN: 4th f2f Bristol
UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document)
- Re: UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document)
- Re: UbiComp Use Case (was: Re: Requirements Document)
On Standardization of the Web Ontology Language - Trends & Controversies Section
The Peter paradox isn't.
- Re: The Peter paradox isn't.
- RE: The Peter paradox isn't.
ADMIN: 3rd face to face - July 1-2, 2002 - San Francisco, CA, USA, req. for info on 4th f2f dates.
- Re: ADMIN: 3rd face to face (regrets)
- Re: ADMIN: 3rd face to face - July 1-2, 2002 - San Francisco, CA, USA, req. for info on 4th f2f dates.
UPDATE: examples of layering
Re: How to layer the semantic web properly?
Re: layering (was Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...)
Re: antifoundation, flat, wellfounded
Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...
REQDOC: reification
REQDOC: ontologies as resources
- Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
- Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
- Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
- Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
- Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
use cases: pls elaborate portal use case a bit, etc.
"what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro
- Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro
- Re: "what is an ontology?" stuff in requirements abstract/intro
RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
ADMIN f2f location for July pending
ADMIN: No telecon Feb 14
MISC: Where's the chair?
record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002 (corrected based on comments)
regrets for 14th and 21st February Telecons
regrets in advance for upcoming meetings
preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002
- Re: preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002
- ADMIN: Re: preliminary record of minutes of tele-con of 7th February 2002
Requirements Document
- Re: Requirements Document
- Re: Requirements Document
regrets 2002-02-07 telecon
UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- I have to apologize for the phone conference this day
- Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
- UPDATE: subject line meaning
- UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document
- Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document
- DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- RDF/XML and charter - WG please note (was UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL)
- Re: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
- RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL