- From: Tim Hare <TimHare@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:20:22 -0500
- To: <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
I've read rdf-calendar more or less peripherally to my interest in the Calsify mailing list and other iCalendar related mailing lists. Your posting of 2002 dates makes me think that you might not have up-to-date specifications (If I am wrong, I apologize). The IETF has approved RFC 5545 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545.txt) and RFC5546 as replacements for the original 2445 and 2446 respectively. In addition, the Calendaring & Scheduling Consortium (http://www.calconnect.org) has an XML working group which may be of interest. I myself contributed (available as a downloadable resource somewhere on the calconnect site) a XSL transform from iCalendar to XML and one from XML to iCalendar although I admit my XML skills are not world class, I'm definitely not RDF-literate, and some of the code is due to studying the XSL work of Masahide Kanzaki and Dan Connolly. Tim Hare Interested Bystander, Non-Inc. -----Original Message----- From: www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-calendar-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter Mika Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:13 AM To: Renato Iannella Cc: Michael Hausenblas; director@dcc.ac.uk; www-rdf-calendar@w3.org; Richard Cyganiak; Harry Halpin; Dan Connolly; Dan Brickley; martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org; Tom Heath Subject: Re: Concerning iCal in RDF Hi All, I would be also happy to see iCal being cleared up as well, especially the basic things like the namespace issue (2002/12/cal/ical# vs 2002/12/cal/icaltzd#). Currently it is also fairly non-ontological for my taste, e.g. using literals for days of week. I understand that as usual there is a trade-off between following the original spec vs. ontologizing. (Another example: locations as literals versus resources.) Martin Hepp might be interested to get involved, because he worked on opening hours in GoodRelations. Tom Heath and myself also worked on an 'availability vocabulary', see [1], which could also be used for inspiration. Personally, I don't have much time to get involved... but I'm happy to comment on any drafts that might come out. Cheers, Peter [1] http://tomheath.com/tmp/availability.ttl Renato Iannella wrote: > On 17 Feb 2010, at 23:30, Michael Hausenblas wrote: > > >> Great, thanks a million! I guess we can do it in the same way as you did >> with vCard. I expect only minor editorial things (mainly: defining the >> namespace URI) while keeping essentially DanC's original W3C Note [1] and >> maybe adding the TC, as suggested. >> > > I think that [1] is more of a discussion document - so I think a new document is needed that, like vCard RDF, simply states "here is how you do it".... IETF iCal into RDF/OWL. > > >> How shall we proceed? Initial skype call, see who is up to it? Would you lead this? >> > > Happy to "help" out not lead ;-) > > Cheers... Renato Iannella > NICTA > > >
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 03:20:59 UTC