W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Re: opening hours RDF cal use case

From: Gary McGath <callist@mcgath.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:49:57 -0500
Cc: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1020-570B5112562C11D7A2A0000393081D92@[216.126.166.164]>

On Friday, March 14, 2003, GK@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) wrote:


>Also, from very vague recollections, isn't FREEBUSY designed to find 
>possible meeting times without disclosing details of one's schedule?
If 
>so, then opening hours seems like a different requirement, in that the 
>goal 
>is precisely to publish one's schedule.  OTOH, it may be a better fit 
>for 
>the 'Currently [OPEN]' requirement.  Then, I question, where is the 
>matching logic to be implemented?  My view is that as much as possible 
>should be done in RDF with common tools.

RFC 2445 isn't entirely clear on the intent of FREEBUSY items.  It
allows a FREEBUSY item to specify properties such as URL, organizer,
attendees, and contact, but gives some of them a different
interpretation from events:

   When used to request free/busy time information, the "ATTENDEE"
   property specifies the calendar users whose free/busy time is being
   requested; the "ORGANIZER" property specifies the calendar user who
   is requesting the free/busy time...

A FREEBUSY can't have a DESCRIPTION or SUMMARY, which is inconvenient if
you want to say something like "Hospitality suite open."

On the basis of these considerations, specifying the hours a facility is
open strikes me as more event-like than freebusy-like.

Gary McGath       http://www.mcgath.com/consulting/
callist@mcgath.com accepts ONLY mail sent to specified mailing lists. 
For other purposes, please send mail to gmcgath at the same domain.
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 09:51:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:20:43 GMT