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

Re: Concerning iCal in RDF

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:18 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <44171dbc0eb174489a5075e0e5a85c9a.squirrel@webmail-mit.w3.org>
To: "Peter Mika" <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "Renato Iannella" <renato@nicta.com.au>, "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "director@dcc.ac.uk" <director@dcc.ac.uk>, "www-rdf-calendar@w3.org" <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "Tom Heath" <tom.heath@gmail.com>
> 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
> inspiration.
> Personally, I don't have much time to get involved... but I'm happy to
> comment on any drafts that might come out.

Yes, RDFCalendar definitely needs to be polished up at this stage in a
similar manner to the recent polishing of vCard in RDF, but...it's a
harder domain (I'm sure DanC has something to say). However, what we could
do also
is put it into scope for a proposed W3C WG that the Social Web XG is
thinking of recommending and drafting the charter for. Or we could just
issue another SWIG note and update.


> Cheers,
> Peter
> [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 08:32:33 UTC

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