Re: Concerning iCal in RDF

Tim,

Thanks for the notice. I wasn't aware of it -  shall be part of our work,
then, I guess ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Tim Hare <TimHare@comcast.net>
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:20:22 -0500
> To: <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Concerning iCal in RDF
> Resent-From: <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:20:59 +0000
> 
> 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
> inspiration.
> 
> Personally, I don't have much time to get involved... but I'm happy to
> comment on any drafts that might come out.
> 
> 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
>> NICTA
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 11:15:26 UTC