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

Friday, 31 May 2002

• Re: 5.11 hasClass/toClass names Jim Hendler
• 5.11 hasClass/toClass names Jeff Heflin
• Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Jeff Heflin
• Re: update to the compliance document Jeff Heflin
• RDFCORE: construct for closed lists Jos De_Roo
• AW: RDFS review (was re: LOG WebOnt Telcon May 30th (Draft)) Raphael Volz
• 3rd Call for Papers: EON2002 York Sure
• RE: DTTF: darkest africa Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Schema document review Nick Gibbins
• RE: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Jeremy Carroll
• RE: DTTF: darkest africa Jeremy Carroll
• Re: LOG WebOnt Telcon May 30th (Draft) herman.ter.horst@philips.com

Thursday, 30 May 2002

• Re: Dark triples are not inherently nonmonotonic Jonathan Borden
• Re: Dark triples are not inherently nonmonotonic Jim Hendler
• Re: Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances Jim Hendler
• Dark triples are not inherently nonmonotonic Jonathan Borden
• Re: RDF Schema document review Jim Hendler
• pls fill out registration form by 21Jun, even to offer regrets Dan Connolly
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Jonathan Borden
• Dark triples are inherently nonmonotonic (from Pat Hayes & R.Guha) R.V.Guha
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Jonathan Borden
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly
• Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE: XML presentation syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory patrick hayes
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances patrick hayes
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) patrick hayes
• RDF Schema document review Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: update to the compliance document Jim Hendler
• LOG WebOnt Telcon May 30th (Draft) Raphael Volz
• DTTF: summary Jonathan Borden
• LANG: official version of full language features document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Regrets for 6/6, 6/13 Lynn Andrea Stein
• Regrets for 5/30 Enrico Motta
• DTTF: Re: AGENDA (update): May 30 telecon Jos De_Roo
• Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL David Trastour
• Re: Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances Jim Hendler
• RE: DTTF: darkest africa Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: update to the compliance document Jeff Heflin
• RE: DTTF: darkest africa Jeremy Carroll
• TEST: sameClassAs testcase Jos De_Roo
• RE: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Jeremy Carroll
• Re: DTTF: darkest africa Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: AGENDA (update): May 30 telecon Frank van Harmelen
• Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty Dan Connolly
• Re: OPEN Issue 2.5 - Closed Sets (daml:List, daml:Collection) Dan Connolly
• AGENDA (update): May 30 telecon Guus Schreiber
• An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Guus Schreiber
• Re: Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances Jeff Heflin
• 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies] Guus Schreiber
• DTTF: darkest africa Jeremy Carroll
• Re: 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies Jos De_Roo
• layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly
• layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory connolly@jammer.dm93.org
• Re: Proposal that Issue 3.3 (Daml:DisjointFrom) be eradicated from the issues list Mike Dean
• Proposal that Issue 3.3 (Daml:DisjointFrom) be eradicated from the issues list Jim Hendler
• Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty Jim Hendler
• Issue 3.1 - Local Restrictions Jim Hendler
• OPEN Issue 2.5 - Closed Sets (daml:List, daml:Collection) Jim Hendler
• Issue 2.4 - Enumerated Classes (daml:oneOf) Jim Hendler
• Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances Jim Hendler

Wednesday, 29 May 2002

• Issue 2.1: URI naming of Instances Jim Hendler
• WOWG ADMIN IMPORTANT: Issue list: cleanup of ISSUES 2.1-3.4 Jim Hendler
• regrets for 5/30 Mike Dean
• Re: archive copies [was: AGENDA: May 30 telecon] Dan Connolly
• Re: update to the compliance document Enrico Motta
• Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Jeff Heflin
• Re: 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies Evan Wallace
• Re: LANG: new version of 2nd face-to-face full language document Jeff Heflin
• Re: archive copies [was: AGENDA: May 30 telecon] Evan Wallace
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Jim Hendler
• archive copies [was: AGENDA: May 30 telecon] Dan Connolly
• WARNING: W3C Scheduled Power Outage 31 May - 1 June Massimo Marchiori
• Re: AGENDA: May 30 telecon Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• AGENDA: May 30 telecon Guus Schreiber
• 4.6 EquivalentTo issue Jeff Heflin
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Jeremy Carroll
• Regrets for 2002-05-30 telecon Nick Gibbins
• Regrets July f2f Jeremy Carroll
• DDTF/layering: weak class theory seems good enough (5.3, 5.10) Dan Connolly

Tuesday, 28 May 2002

• 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies Dan Connolly
• An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: iswc meeting proposal on webont language documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• DTTF: summary 5/27/2002 for review Jonathan Borden

Monday, 27 May 2002

• ISSUES: 4.5, 5..11, 4.6 opened Guus Schreiber
• Re: More on a UML based presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty
• RE: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Ziv Hellman
• AID'02 Workshop ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Guus Schreiber

Sunday, 26 May 2002

• update to the compliance document Deborah McGuinness
• minutes of EU/US Joint committee Deborah McGuinness

Friday, 24 May 2002

• Re: regrets for may 28, june 4, question on june 11 Ian Horrocks
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal (property vs. relation) Dan Connolly
• iswc meeting proposal on webont language documents Deborah McGuinness
• pls register for WebOnt ftf3, 1-2 Jun in Stanford Dan Connolly
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jos De_Roo
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jos De_Roo
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jeremy Carroll
• Re: More on a UML based presentation syntax for OWL Frank van Harmelen
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Jim Hendler
• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Jos De_Roo

Thursday, 23 May 2002

• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Dan Connolly
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding pat hayes
• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help pat hayes
• regrets for may 28, june 4, question on june 11 Deborah McGuinness
• ADMIN: Telecon regrets May 30, June 6 Smith, Michael K
• 23 May WebOnt teleconference minutes for review Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• 5/23 Belated Regrets Thompson, Lynne R
• Issue: compliance level 1 position with respect to rdf Deborah McGuinness
• Re: May 23rd telecon regrets David Trastour
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jeremy Carroll
• Re: More on a UML based presentation syntax for OWL Guus Schreiber
• Re: Guide/Lang: UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Guus Schreiber
• Re: ISSUE NOT OPEN (was Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding) Dan Brickley
• ISSUE NOT OPEN (was Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding) Jim Hendler
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Issue: Feature decision for compliance level 1: cardinality restrictions Deborah McGuinness
• Issue: Feature decision for compliance level 1: local range restrictions Deborah McGuinness
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Dan Brickley

Wednesday, 22 May 2002

• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Jonathan Borden
• Why paradoxes would render OWL useless Jonathan Borden
• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Dan Connolly
• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Jonathan Borden
• Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Dan Connolly
• Re: DTTF: How unasserted triples help Dan Connolly
• DTTF: How unasserted triples help Jonathan Borden
• RE: ADMIN: pointers to useful WebOnt information from the WebOnt home page Smith, Michael K
• Re: ADMIN: pointers to useful WebOnt information from the WebOnt home page Dan Connolly
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• MISC: Response to RDF Core re: RDF Schema Nick Gibbins
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Dan Connolly
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE: Ontology versioning Jeff Heflin
• LANG: new version of 2nd face-to-face full language document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jeremy Carroll
• ADMIN: pointers to useful WebOnt information from the WebOnt home page Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• May 23rd telecon regrets Libby Miller
• DTTF: summary (gasp!) Jonathan Borden
• ADMIN: Agenda for May 23rd Telecon Jim Hendler

Tuesday, 21 May 2002

• Re: On UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• More on a UML based presentation syntax for OWL Evan Wallace
• Re: A derivation of a contradiction from the Russell set (was Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak) Jos De_Roo
• Re: On UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty

Monday, 20 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Jim Hendler
• A derivation of a contradiction from the Russell set (was Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Guide/Lang: UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• ISSUE: Entailing inconsistencies Jos De_Roo
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• ISSUE: hasClass/toClass Jim Hendler
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Sunday, 19 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak patrick hayes
• Re: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions patrick hayes
• Re: On UML as a presentation syntax for OWL patrick hayes
• Re: ISSUE: Datatypes patrick hayes

Monday, 20 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Smith, Michael K
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo

Sunday, 19 May 2002

• ADMIN: Log of May 16 WEBONT Telecon Jim Hendler
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Jim Hendler

Saturday, 18 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 17 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Smith, Michael K
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jos De_Roo

Thursday, 16 May 2002

• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Deborah McGuinness
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Enrico Motta
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: Datatypes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE: Datatypes Nick Gibbins
• Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Jim Hendler
• Re: ISSUE: Datatypes Dan Connolly
• Re: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Jim Hendler
• Re: SEM: OWL issues affecting OWL semantics Dan Connolly
• Re: Guide/Lang: UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Ian Horrocks
• SEM: OWL issues affecting OWL semantics Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE: Datatypes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Mike Dean
• RE: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Smith, Michael K
• regrets for 5/16 telecon Leo Obrst
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Jos De_Roo
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Deborah McGuinness
• Re: On UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Deborah McGuinness
• WOWG: Ontology awareness increasing Jim Hendler
• RE: Chairs and webont email problems Thompson, Lynne R

Wednesday, 15 May 2002

• Re: AGENDA: May 16 telecon Guus Schreiber
• Regrets for 5/16 Jeff Heflin
• Chairs and webont email problems Jim Hendler
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Deborah McGuinness
• AGENDA: May 16 telecon Guus Schreiber
• Guide/Lang: UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Dan Connolly

Tuesday, 14 May 2002

• regrets 16th May telecon Libby Miller
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Leo Obrst
• On UML as a presentation syntax for OWL Christopher Welty
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Christopher Welty
• DTTF: Embracing the dark side Jeremy Carroll
• Re: Compliance Level 1 Proposal Jos De_Roo
• Regrets for 5/16 tim finin
• Compliance Level 1 Proposal Deborah McGuinness

Monday, 13 May 2002

• Regrets for 16-May Jonathan Dale

Sunday, 12 May 2002

• Re: DTTF: Can 'semantically closed' languages be extended? Jos De_Roo
• LANG/GUIDE: Thought on compliance levels and WG goals (Sem/test please read too) Jim Hendler

Saturday, 11 May 2002

• Re: ISSUE: daml:imports as magic syntax Leo Obrst
• WOWG: Presentation at WWW 2002 on Web Ont WG Jim Hendler

Friday, 10 May 2002

• Regrets larry.eshelman@philips.com
• DTTF: Can 'semantically closed' languages be extended? Jonathan Borden
• ISSUE: daml:imports as magic syntax Jeff Heflin

Tuesday, 7 May 2002

• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jos De_Roo
• RE: DTTF: another summary Smith, Michael K

Monday, 6 May 2002

• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jonathan Borden
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jos De_Roo
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jonathan Borden
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jonathan Borden
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jos De_Roo
• Semantic Web article in today's Financial Times Ian Horrocks
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jonathan Borden

Sunday, 5 May 2002

• Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Jos De_Roo
• ISSUE: range restrictions should not be separate URIs Ziv Hellman

Friday, 3 May 2002

• Re: circular paradox gizmo Jos De_Roo

Saturday, 4 May 2002

• FYI: WebOnt on xml.com Jonathan Borden

Friday, 3 May 2002

• Re: DTTF: Chair's request Jim Hendler
• Re: DTTF: Chair's request Dan Connolly
• Re: Chair's request Jonathan Borden
• DTTF: Chair's request Jim Hendler
• Re: DTTF: comprehension Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comprehension Jonathan Borden
• Re: circular paradox gizmo Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: DTTF: another summary Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• a problem with comprehensive entailments Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: circular paradox gizmo Jos De_Roo
• Re: DTTF: comprehension Jos De_Roo
• DTTF: comprehension Jeremy Carroll
• DTTF: another summary Jeremy Carroll

Thursday, 2 May 2002

• Re: circular paradox gizmo Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: LANG: number range expressions Jim Hendler
• circular paradox gizmo Jos De_Roo
• Re: LANG: number range expressions Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness
• 2 May WebOnt telcon minutes for review [was: Updated WOWG Telecon Agenda] Dan Connolly
• Re: LANG: number range expressions David Trastour
• Re: syntactic restrictions on RDF graphs Brian McBride
• RE: DTTF: high-level summary (attempt) Jeremy Carroll
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• ISSUE: List syntax or semantics Jeremy Carroll
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Frank van Harmelen
• Re: LANG: number range expressions Dan Connolly
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: DTTF: high-level summary (attempt) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Ian Horrocks
• Re: syntactic restrictions on RDF graphs Dan Connolly
• regrets for a few weeks Ziv Hellman
• Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST) Ian Horrocks
• LANG: number range expressions Ziv Hellman
• syntactic restrictions on RDF graphs Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Regrets Thompson, Lynne R
• DTTF: high-level summary (attempt) Massimo Marchiori
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness
• Re: ADMIN: Updated WOWG Telecon Agenda, May 2 Dan Connolly
• GUIDE: UML presentation syntax reviews? [was: Telecon Agenda, May 2] Dan Connolly
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case Jeremy Carroll
• Regrets - May 2 telecon Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston)
• Stanton - Regrets - May 2 Teleconference Stanton, John
• Stanton - Regrets Telecom May 2 Stanton, John
• ADMIN Telecon agenda update (was Re: New RDF Core Working Drafts published) Jim Hendler
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Enrico Motta
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: Ann: Web Services Architecture Requirements published (fwd) Bernard Horan
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Jos De_Roo
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• New RDF Core Working Drafts published Dan Brickley
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Frank van Harmelen
• Lang Compliance and Tomorrow's telecon Jim Hendler
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness
• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Christopher Welty
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (VOTE on local range restrictions) Deborah McGuinness
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Jonathan Borden
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Jonathan Borden
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Ian Horrocks
• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Ian Horrocks

Wednesday, 1 May 2002

• Re: LANG: compliance levels (VOTE on local range restrictions) Ian Horrocks
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Deborah McGuinness
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Jonathan Borden
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Enrico Motta
• Re: LANG: compliance levels (VOTE on local range restrictions) Deborah McGuinness
• Re: LANG: compliance levels Enrico Motta
• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Deborah McGuinness
• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Deborah McGuinness
• Re: ADMIN: Updated WOWG Telecon Agenda, May 2 Jonathan Borden
• ADMIN: Updated WOWG Telecon Agenda, May 2 Jim Hendler
• Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf Dan Brickley

Last message date: Friday, 31 May 2002 17:44:49 UTC