Re: places and lists of coordinates [was: priority bug, to libby and dan]

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 10:40, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
[...]

> So, I think it's not good idea to define ical:geo as the list of floats.

I can see your point, but I'm not yet convinced. What would you prefer?

> Remember, we also want to use RDFical vocabulary with other vocab, such as
> RSS, FOAF or even XHTML. Strict round trip .ics <-> RDFical is only
> relevant when RDFical is generated from iCalendar, and doesn't make much
> sense when the vocab is used in, say, FOAF file.
>
> Wouldn't it be enough to say something like 'when converted from .ics,
> ical:geo should be expressed as the list of floats so that strict round
> trip is possible' ?

I don't think so... not without the sort of confusion discussed in
  http://esw.w3.org/topic/ThingsVersusTheirNames

Either the range of ical:geo is a list of floats
or a place. RFC2445 says it's a list of floats. I wouldn't have
done it that way, but they did. Similarly, ical:location takes
a string value.

It's straightforward to relate the place to the list of floats ala:

{ ?E ical:geo (?LAT ?LONG) } <=>
  { ?E cyc:eventOccursAt [ geo:lat ?LAT; geo:lon ?LONG ] }.

and it's straightforward to relate a place to its name:

{ ?E ical:location ?PLACENAME } <=>
  { ?E cyc:eventOccursAt [ rdfs:label ?PLACENAME ] }.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 13:22:20 UTC