Re: general questions about schema

hi Mark,

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Mark Mansour wrote:

> Hi rdf-cal people,
>
> I'm trying to push Daylight and Standard sub-components into an RDF graph
> (terminology?), but the RDF schema file (caltzd.rdf) states that DAYLIGHT
> and STANDARD are properties.

http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/icaltzd.rdf is the file you're talking about
I think.

>
> This post http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2005Nov/0001
> seems
> to indicate that these components are now being parsed out of the marked up
> rfc and that they weren't being parsed prior to these alterations.

yep, that's right (although they were in the testcases).

>
> I'm new to RDF, so I'm curious whether this is correct or whether they
> should be Resources.  I'm realizing what a long road I've started walking
> down...

We made certain modelling decisions when the schema was created, and
probably these could be modelled as Resources rather than properties, but
at the time this was seen to be the best approach (having said that I
can't find an explicit decision about this in the archives).

Ah, one thing might confuse you.
<daylight rdf:parseType="Resource">

is a shorthand for

<daylight>
  <rdf:Description>
  ...
  </rdf:Description>
</daylight>

i.e. there's an implicit Resource in there - see
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-parsetype-resource

Does that make more sense?

Libby

>
> Mark
>

Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 18:20:07 UTC