W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2005

Re: "RDF Calendar - an application of the Resource Description Framework to iCalendar Data" is a W3C Interest Group Note

From: Doug Royer <Doug@Royer.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:52:39 -0600
Message-ID: <434D5B77.1050600@Royer.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org, Libby Miller <libby@asemantics.com>, semantic-web@w3.org

In that document it says in part:

 > i.e. "this document is a Vcalendar with ... ." But we ran into a case
 > of iCalendar data with more than one calendar in a file. There was
 > some discrepancy among implementations as to whether this was good
 > data; mozilla did not seem to accept it, but this was reported as a
 > bug#179985 and indeed, section 4.4 iCalendar Object says
 >
 > The Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object is a collection of
 > calendaring and scheduling information. Typically, this information
 > will consist of a single iCalendar object. However, multiple iCalendar
 > objects can be sequentially grouped together.

It is not that there are multiple calendars per file. Its that there
can be multiple VCALENDARS objects per iCalendar object. RFC-2445 does
not specify a calendar storage format. It specifies a framework for
exchanging calendar information, and not for exchanging calendars.
RFC-2446 (iTIP) explains how to do the handshaking of the RFC-2445
information.

As each VCALENDAR may only contain zero or one METHOD properties (see
iTIP), and in order to represent multiple calendar requests that may
contain both booked and scheduling (METHOD) objects, it is necessary
to be able to allow for more than one VCALENDAR object in a transfer
(More than one VCALENDAR object per iCalendar object)..

Later in the document:

 > We have explored using the iCalendar uid property to make URIs for
 > event components2003-08-19. It's not clear whether events in separate
 > files bearing the same uid should be considered identical or merely
 > different views of the same event. For example, if they are identical,
 > they have the same alarms. One approach that seems to work well is to
 > use the uid as a fragment identifier rather than as a full URI.

RFC-2445 says: (Section 4.8.4.8, page 111):

   ... Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique
       identifier....

And iTIP (RFC-2446) explains how to merge, compare, sorts
and determine the order of components based on the METHOD
SEQUENCE, DTSTAMP, and other properties. So, I am not sure why it
is stated that it is not clear if they are versions of the same
object.

If specific implementations fail in one or more of the above it
simply means they have bugs.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> This came out a week or so ago, but I suppose an announcement here is in
> order...
> 
> RDF Calendar - an application of the Resource Description Framework to
> iCalendar Data
> W3C Interest Group Note 29 September 2005
> This version
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-rdfcal-20050929/
> Latest version
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/
> Authors
>         Dan Connolly, W3C
>         Libby Miller, ASemantics
> 
> Copyright 2005 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
> liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
> 
> 

-- 

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards


Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 18:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:06 UTC