W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > February 2005

Please put IFP and FP decls into the TZD and iCal ontologies

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:50:15 -0500
Message-Id: <DF4F8070-7B16-11D9-8A9C-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
To: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org

See the discussion on SWIG

http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2005/02/09/2005-02-09.html#1107960722.011240

which points to

http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical-ifp.n3

and

http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2005/02/09/2005-02-09.html#1107960585.916652

which points to

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

I have basically added those IFPs and FPs which seemed to make sense
and which allow one to uniquely nail (indirectly name) every bnode in
a calendar graph.  This is for making patches from changes files,
as in  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Diff

Currently, delta.py will take extra metadata files with --meta=ifps.n3
but it would be much nicer to have them in the ontology: I'd
like them to represent community understanding.


The remaining issues are just the lack of UIDs on calendars themselves
and on alarms. Both these have X- identifiers in various clients, but
that doesn't help if they are not generally supported.

The calendar ID issue is easy: there is normally one per file,
and it can be passed as a parameter at conversion time.

A possibility with alarms is to regard them as structured datatypes,
so basically concatenating their parameters (offset time, noise, etc)
as strings gives a sort of name.

Tim BL
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 03:50:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:20:45 GMT