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

how do we know we're done? summary of agenda item 2 from IRC RDF calendar meeting 2003-03-12

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:17:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0303171442460.12413-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


The aim of this agenda item was:

[[
18:08:17   <libby>perhaps a little premature, but it's nice to be
able to say to people - "we're near finished"
]]


libby: ACTION libby summarise this discussion into smethign we can
discuss again and maybe agree on in an email

weblog:
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/03/12/2003-03-12.html

logs:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-03-12.html#T18-06-33


Summary of discussions

People had different opinions about when we might be finished, and
indeed whether we need to discuss this question in an informal
group like this:

[[
 18:47:31   <DanC-AIM> Re 'how do we know when we're done?' ... That's
the sort of hard question that I'm not really interested in unless/until
we're chartering a wg.
]]

However,
1. round tripping iCalendar and RDF calendar was deemed essential.
For this we need an agreed target test suite

other possible goals included:

2. tools that use the RDF and can be used to create the RDF (Charles
McCathieNeville)

3. being able to do simple date calculations with non-recurring events
(Tim Berners-Lee)

4. being able to do simple date calculations with recurring events,
possibly using a set of rules
(Tim Berners-Lee)

[[
 18:17:23   <timbl> simple date calculations; just some test cases where
you take an event and test that it is or is not in progress at 13:00 on
2003-03-07 and so on.
18:17:37 <timbl> - or test whether two events overlap.
]]

5. when it's obvious

[[
18:48:59   <DanC-AIM> Meanwhile, we're done when (a) nobody shows up
any more, or (b) wide deployment breaks out.
]]

Perhaps people might like to add to this list here.

Although it would be interesting to know people's opinions, I don't
think further discussion about this issue is particularly important
right now. We have some agreement about (1) - roundtripping, which
focusses attention on the nature and size of our test suite.

On this note, the producers of iCalendar, the Calsch working group,
charge for interoperability testing:

http://www.calsch.org/CalConnect3/calconnect3.html

I've asked them for their tests, and kindly offered me some from a
previous interop session, but they (understandably but annoyingly) will
not make them public, and I don't see much point it in having
'tested' code which you can't show that you've completely tested. So
the hunt is on for more testcases, especially for corner cases and
recurrence.

Some are available at or linked from

http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/

cheers

Libby
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 10:20:03 GMT

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