W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > May 2001

RE: RDF vs. iCal

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:44:05 -0700
To: <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LHEGJAOEDCOFFBGFAPKBOEHBCGAA.chas@munat.com>
Michael Arick wrote:

"Furthermore, as I understand it, we are trying to provide a framework
for transition from iCal to RDF-based calendaring, so leaving any iCal
data out is NOT a good idea."

We are? I must have missed this.

I have been operating under the impression that we are trying to establish a
calendaring system in RDF. Then it was suggested that we ensure
compatibility with iCal. That's not quite the same thing as reinterpreting
our goal as nothing more than rewriting iCal in RDF.

iCal is probably a pretty good calendaring system, but it starts at a high
level (and as far as I can tell, is based entirely on the Gregorian
calendar). That makes it unsuitable for many other uses.

I'd rather see a basic "time" module, and then a module to handle data in
iCal format. There's no reason we can't have both. Building our Calendaring
system on iCal would be like basing SVG on Flash, to my mind. Just because
one format is popular doesn't mean that it is automatically the way to go.

I don't use iCal so frankly I don't give a shit about it. Why should RDF
Calendaring shove iCal down my throat? Maybe I'll decide to use an iCal-like
system someday, but shouldn't that be my choice?

I am strongly opposed to locking ourselves in to one system -- especially
right up front without any real discussion of other possibilities.

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 19:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:10 UTC