Re: The w3c test objects.

Libby Miller wrote:

>>  The RDF-cal does not distinguish between property values and parameters.
>>    
>>
>
>this distinction doesn't really matter to RDF :)
>We don't think that matters as long as we can get back to the iCalendar
>format as required.
>
That's incorrect.  You need to build an isomorphism between iCalendar 
and RDF, *not* between "iCalendar with the properties and parameters 
defined in RFC-2445" and RDF.

You're not the first to make this mistake; the xCal spec had the same 
problem (maybe it still does; not sure).  It's an easy mistake to make, 
since RFC-2445 comingles the data model with the low-level syntax.  But 
the guideline you need to adopt is that your definition of the mapping 
MUST NOT know anything about individual components, properties, or 
parameters; it MUST be able to handle any legal iCalendar object, even 
if it uses entities which aren't defined today.  Suppose two people have 
iCalendar-based CUAs, but there's an RDF store somewhere along the path 
between them; when an iCalendar object reaches that RDF store, and later 
gets extracted, the resulting iCalendar must be equivalent to the original.

Perhaps 2445bis should be split into two documents, one to define the 
syntax and one to define the data model (as was done with vCard; see 
RFC-242[56]).

-- 
/=====================================================\
|John Stracke      |[email protected]              |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com            |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.           |
|=====================================================|
|"The Reality Check's in the mail." --L. Peter Deutsch|
\=====================================================/