iCalendar RDF Schema

Hello to all.

I am doing research in the domain of semantic web services. My initial
project targets the use of FIPA compliant calendaring agents that use
RDF as a content language for message exchange. In doing this work, I
have come to appreciate the value of the hybrid.rdf document; however,
it appears that no work has been done on it in a little over a year.
After reading Libby's update from May 21, 2002 it appears that complete
iCalendar may be overkill for the types of tools and ideas that are
being experimented with. Obviously the hybrid.rdf is useful in its
current form; however, I believe it may be worth putting some more
effort into. I have generated the following to start a discussion.

Suggested recommendations and improvements to the iCalendar hybrid.rdf
document.

1.	Structure the document using the ordering found in sections 2.7
- 2.9 of the iCalendar DTD Document (xCal) found at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-calsch-many-xcal-02.txt

2.	As indicated in Libby's post, RFC2445 is long and unwieldy. I
suggest that for each element defined in the iCalendar namespace, a
comment containing the url to the appropriate sections in the RFC be
made.
As in the following example:

<!-- 
    BINARY
    http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2445.html#anchor48 
-->
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="&iCalendar;BINARY"
 rdfs:label="binary"
 rdfs:comment="Used to identify properties that contain a character
encoding of inline binary data.">

 <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&xmlsdt;base64binary" />

</rdfs:Class>


3.	Generate a consolidated list of open-issues with the schema.
Ideally placed as a comment at the beginning of the document.

4.	Institute some form of configuration management for the
document. If it is decided that changes and improvements should be made;
they should be tracked.

5.	Rename the document to be more descriptive, like ical.rdf. A
stub referencing the new document can be left at the old URL.

I can perform numbers 1 and 2 in preparation for an initial check-in to
a configuration management system. After an initial revision exists, I
would like to correct several issues to bring the schema into closer
conformance with RFC2445. Perhaps discussions can be had regarding some
of the issues regarding date formats, et.al.

Regards,

Paul Buhler
College of Charleston
Charleston, SC USA

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:41:23 UTC