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

proposed agenda RDF calendar meet, 2003-09-10, 1600UTC

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:23:41 +0100 (BST)
To: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309091821220.20701-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>



The next meet is 2003-09-10, 1600UTC:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=10&month=9&year=2003&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

We meet on IRC, irc.freenode.net #rdfig for 90 minutes.
More on IRC: http://esw.w3.org/topic/InternetRelayChat

Last meeting's weblog, serving as the meeting record:
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/08/20/2003-08-20.html

Logs of the last meeting:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-08-20.html#T16-03-19

some agenda items

* roundtripping
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/06/25/2003-06-25.html#1056557026.871899
ACTION mortenf: take a stab at regression tests for .ics->.rdf and/or
.rdf->.ics

* winding down the calendar chats?
Recently there has been a reduction in enthusiasm about the RDF
calendar chats.

PROPOSED: that we move the discussions to email for now; the IRC chats
can be resurrected if there is sufficient interest in the future.

* documentation
I would like to see a W3C Note or something similar come out of this
work - what does everyone think?

* xproperties and their usefulness or otherwise:

Issue: roundtripping is not possible with xproperties
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-08-20.html#T15-43-10

possible solution: remove from tests.
are there any we think are useful to support?

[[
16:27:12 <mortenf> seems there are 6 diff:
16:27:32 <mortenf> X-EVOLUTION-ALARM-UID X-LIC-LOCATION
X-WR-CALNAME;VALUE=TEXT X-WR-ITIPSTATUSML;VALUE=TEXT
X-WR-RELCALID;VALUE=TEXT X-WR-TIMEZONE;VALUE=TEXT
16:27:40 <mortenf> in all .ics files
]]

* Other outstanding actions and items

- http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/05/14/2003-05-14.html#1052921345.552964
InterpretationProperties, esp as applied to timezones
-- we discussed this last week, but didn't resolve anything. I'd like to
have a vote on what's best to do in this case.

PROPOSED: that we note the issue but keep the status quo.

The discussion starts about here:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-08-20.html#T17-00-59

[[
<DanC> here's where I am: (a) I'm uncomfortable with the way our RDF
timezone properties work, and I suspect applying the
InterpretationProperties pattern would help, but (b) I'm able to get
work done with the status quo, and (c) I haven't found sufficient
motivation to design and implement something better
]]

[[
17:24:09 <libby> given limited effort available to do this work, I
wonder if the status quo might be the best thing to do
17:26:29 <libby> it seems to me that if we can work with it, it might be
better declaring the vocab 'finished' and moving on to more interesting
things, rather than starting another big job
]]

- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2003Aug/0001.html
IDs for events?

last discussion:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-08-20.html#T17-35-46

I'd be happier if we could get a resolution for this.

PROPOSED: that we leave as is, that is, support UIDs as iCalendar RFC
2445 does, but not specify anything about whether or how one event is
deemed to be the same event as another.


- http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/05/14/2003-05-14.html#1052921472.659227
ACTION libby look at skical optimeset and report back


- http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/06/25/2003-06-25.html#1056556072.203619
ACTION libby: add a couple schemas under cal/prod


More agenda items very welcome.

cheers,

Libby
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 20:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:11 UTC