W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Concerning iCal in RDF

From: Tim Hare <TimHare@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:20:22 -0500
To: <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002501cab112$7902ba30$6b082e90$@net>
I've read rdf-calendar more or less peripherally to my interest in the
Calsify mailing list and other iCalendar related mailing lists.  Your
posting of 2002 dates makes me think that you might not have up-to-date
specifications (If I am wrong, I apologize).  The IETF has approved RFC 5545
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545.txt) and RFC5546 as replacements for
the original 2445 and 2446 respectively.   In addition, the Calendaring &
Scheduling Consortium (http://www.calconnect.org) has an XML working group
which may be of interest. I myself contributed (available as a downloadable
resource somewhere on the calconnect site) a XSL transform from iCalendar to
XML and one from XML to iCalendar although I admit my XML skills are not
world class, I'm definitely not RDF-literate, and some of the code is due to
studying the XSL work of Masahide Kanzaki and Dan Connolly. 

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter Mika
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:13 AM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: Michael Hausenblas; director@dcc.ac.uk; www-rdf-calendar@w3.org; Richard
Cyganiak; Harry Halpin; Dan Connolly; Dan Brickley;
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org; Tom Heath
Subject: Re: Concerning iCal in RDF

Hi All,

I would be also happy to see iCal being cleared up as well, especially 
the basic things like the namespace issue (2002/12/cal/ical# vs 
2002/12/cal/icaltzd#). Currently it is also fairly non-ontological for 
my taste, e.g. using literals for days of week. I understand that as 
usual there is a trade-off between following the original spec vs. 
ontologizing. (Another example: locations as literals versus resources.)

Martin Hepp might be interested to get involved, because he worked on 
opening hours in GoodRelations. Tom Heath and myself also worked on an 
'availability vocabulary', see [1], which could also be used for 

Personally, I don't have much time to get involved... but I'm happy to 
comment on any drafts that might come out.


[1] http://tomheath.com/tmp/availability.ttl

Renato Iannella wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2010, at 23:30, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Great, thanks a million! I guess we can do it in the same way as you did
>> with vCard. I expect only minor editorial things (mainly: defining the
>> namespace URI) while keeping essentially DanC's original W3C Note [1] and
>> maybe adding the TC, as suggested.
> I think that [1] is more of a discussion document - so I think a new
document is needed that, like vCard RDF, simply states "here is how you do
it".... IETF iCal into RDF/OWL.
>> How shall we proceed? Initial skype call, see who is up to it? Would you
lead this?
> Happy to "help" out not lead ;-)
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 03:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:13 UTC