RE: deriving the schema from the iCalendar RFC (new namespace?)

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 10:03, Paul Cowles wrote:
> Upon first inspection, this schema looks like a nice progression. 
> 
> When you say "leaning toward replacing
> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical.rdf", I am making the assumption that the
> new schema will have its own URI and we can cut over to the new schema as
> our release schedule permits.

Ah... good thing you made your assumptions explicit; I neglected to.

I was thinking about updating the schema in place, not making a
new URI. I updated many of the test data files to match this new
schema design last night, in fact.

But if we've reached the point where there's sufficient investment
in the existing schema that significant changes need to go at
a new URI, I can understand that, and I'm prepared to back out
the test data changes that I made last night.

But we then have to take on the cost of maintaing two versions,
explaining why they're both there, and all that. Hmm...

Hm... I know lots of groups and applications wrestle with this
sort of transition... it deserves a wiki topic. I don't think
we have one yet.

> We'll be able to take a closer look shortly and will follow-up with more
> feedback.

I look forward to it.

> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:31 PM
> To: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
> Subject: deriving the schema from the iCalendar RFC [was: XHTML version of
> RFC 2445]
> 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 12 February 2004 11:24:10 UTC