Tim wrote:
Conclusion: very appropriate to map to RDF: a shoe-in. This would release a 
few tensions/ambiguities in iCaldendar as is, too, and remove much 
unnecessary extension stuff from the spec.

I don't think shoe-in is exactly the right word for it.  I have been hanging 
around on RDF lists for over a year now and I think it would be pretty 
adventurous  to take iCal, which is already used in quite a few applicatins 
into that fray.  Maybe from your vantage point you see a consensus which I 
don't grasp.  I am going ask a new member of the SKiCAl WG, Jonas  
Liljegren,  to write about this.

Anyway I admire your gall.  Here I am trepiditiously trying to sway the 
cautious and concerned IETF into making a considerably radical departure 
from  current procedure  and you are kind of saying; "hey lets go jump off 
Niagara Falls in a barrel, while were at it!"  :-)

The faint of heart could do it in XML and just check at intervals that they 
were really doing it in RDF :) So long as they didn't use XML attributes.

Well, call me "faint", but we do SKiCal in XML and use XML attributes and 
would not dare at this stage to switch over to RDF.  Not now in any case.


Sematic Web enthusiast me too

Get Your Private, Free Email at

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 11:29:51 UTC