Re: Concerning iCal in RDF

Peter,

> 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.

Good idea to include Martin and Tom, thanks!
 
> Personally, I don't have much time to get involved... but I'm happy to
> comment on any drafts that might come out.

Fair enough, given your commitments ;) Thanks for your support!


Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:12:50 +0100
> To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "director@dcc.ac.uk"
> <director@dcc.ac.uk>, "www-rdf-calendar@w3.org" <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>,
> Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>,
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>,
> "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Tom Heath
> <tom.heath@gmail.com>
> 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 11:14:58 UTC