Re: Why do we need RDF calendaring?

Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> actually if you monitor the calsch mailing list you can find numerous
> complaints with iCal; it describes a public activities calendar poorly
> (enter skical), its ambigious and horridly complex to parse (enter iptel),
> its design precludes security (no solution yet).

kellan, thanks for your blast of fresh air about iCal. I think it's safe to
say that many of us here have not had real experience with the format and so
at least I welcome this kind of information.

It seems that RDF will solve a lot of problems you point out with iCal, by
providing lots of parsers and easy extensibility as well as the mass of
other RDF solutions already available.

> i see hope for a rdf calendaring project, as one that would inherently
> understand the benefits of the network, and modularity, too tools that
> would make iCal (and iTip, iMip, and CAP) much more powerful and simple,
> but are precluded by their self-contained, and monolithic designs.


Would you suggest that creating an RDF format based on the iCal work is a
mistake, or that we should begin converting iCal to RDF and allow the
flexibility of RDF to begin to fix the problems of iCal?

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 23:12:30 UTC