Re: VCal namespace

KANZAKI Masahide wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I've been using RDFcal for five years in my project, and if the name
> space changed this time, it's the second time upset in this short
> period. It's very unfortunate for existing projects to have such an
> unstable namespace as its building block.
> 
> If it is inevitable, please make it complete as soon as possible so
> that current project will not waste more resources. If possible,
> unchanged namespace is desirable.
> 
> (Actually, I'm writing a book, one chapter of which is devoted to RDF
> calendar. Stable namespace is very important.)

Hi there! Glad to hear you're writing another book.

I'm glad to hear you consider five years a short time. 2002 seems like 
only yesterday to me :)

Peter's main point came from a perceived ambiguity in the rdfcal W3C 
Note, about which namespace to use.

"unfortunately the spec at [3] leaves the question in limbo, using 
either one or the other namespace at various points", 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/

The Note lists this as an unresolved issue,
"Note that NY:tz timezone is used as a datatype. Earlier, we used 
separate properties for time and timezone, which is initially appealing 
but problematic for reasons that are detailed in the 
InterpretationProperties  pattern.

     * Objections were raised when this change was made to the original 
...2002/12/cal/ical# schema. This design is using a somewhat 
experimental2005-03-30 namespace name, ...2002/12/cal/icaltzd#."

...which cites Dan's msg of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2005Mar/0015.html

It's clear from the Note that we don't yet have documented consensus 
about the value of these different designs, so it is unclear which 
pattern the SearchMonkey folk at Yahoo should be promoting.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2004Oct/0004.html
  you suggest,

[[
Yes, yes. It's very welcome to roll back the changes in the schema of
current URI, as well as to discuss and develop modified schema with a new
namespace URI.

 >[danc] The tests and conversion tools will migrate to the
 >new schema, I think; I don't think I can afford to
 >keep 2 sets of them around.

That's fine. Keep existing data as is, and move forward.
]]

It seems the existing Note pretty much captures things at this turning 
point, which is why it confuses Peter by mentioning two different 
namespaces.

I don't see any problem with the original namespace being unchanged and 
stable. It should be fine to use, adopt and rely on. The question is 
more: do we recommend people use it, or do we recommend people use the 
later one with a changed design for timezones? Is anyone beyond Dan 
making much use of the later design?

Hmm maybe we can ask the various RDF crawlers about this... take a look 
at what has been published in the Web? Of course this wouldn't reflect 
private usage, and calendar data is often private or intranet. Perhaps 
we can also do Google Code searches or similar?

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 11:54:08 UTC