- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:31:26 -0600
- To: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
OK, so I now have a schema that's starting to be pretty useful... http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/rfc2445-formal.rdf It has pretty good domain/range info on all icalendar properties. I've checked the properties that occur in the first few test data files pretty thoroughly, and I'm convinced the rest are right. I'd like somebody to review and confirm. I'm leaning toward replacing http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical.rdf with that content, once I get a couple things done: -- base URI issues -- connecting it to the test data somehow I'm thinking about using http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/validate.n3 to connect the data to the schema... or an OWL DL checker like pellet... or something... I'll let you know when I've got it working. Meanwhile... who agrees that this schema is better? On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 03:02, Dan Connolly wrote: > I produced an XHTML-happy version of the iCalendar RFC: > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/rfc2445 > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/rfc2445.html > > It has TOC navigation, so you can cite section 4.4 directly: > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/rfc2445#sec4.4 > > I'm sure this has been done before, but my motivation > is to extract schema information out of the RFC, and > XHTML sorta came out as a debugging byproduct as > my code was digesting the spec... > > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/slurpIcalSpec.py > v 1.1 2004/01/28 08:54:24 > > Share and Enjoy. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the W3C Tech Plenary in Cannes 1-5 Mar 2003?
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 13:31:56 UTC