Free hibinary optionsrical binary options quotes
When looking for a natural representation of data in a given lanbguage in RDF, one looks at first for the natural structureo fthe language. Apart from the noted exceptions, this translatoin leads to a set of fairly logically defined RDF properties which could form iCalendar's contribution to the semantic web.
A "calendar" consists of a set of components, such as events, and to-do list and journal entries. These seem natural RDF types.
There is a choice of whether to introduce special a specific property as the relationship between the containing calendar and a specfic type of component, or whther to use generic inclusion property and then specifythe subtype of the component. The components have properties, even known as properties in iCalendar. Now each property is in fact a complex thing which has a "value" implcitly named and various "parameters" with names.
The values are generally atomic things suhc as integers and strings, with two exceptions. Another is that the value datatype "rcecur"is a string which itself has a substructure.
This recurrence substructure takes the form of guess what! This makes general parsing impossible, direct conversion into XML difficult. The only hope is that in fact that it not true and there is more consistency than this line leads you to believe!
One parser per page of the spec. Nicer to write that. Note that making base64 a first class relationship subclass of encoding makes for brevity and extensibility: It is assumed in base The earlier example with the URI.
So I guess that if i want to represent something which does There needs to be an explicit property between the introduced thing and any "value". I assume this can be formalized. It is very confusing who ends up being the attendee notionally when both delegates-to and -from are specified. Changing this to RDF, or contemplating doing logical operations on this make one queasy about the solidity here.
If that section of the spec 4. You don't say "I am free or busy as follows: Maybe it does later in the spec. This is a relationship between a mailbox and another mailbox. It is that the owner of one mailbox is being represented by the owner of another. Yes, the message which asserted this data was probably sent by the agent, but the term is misleading when it crops up in the data.
This will cause confusion. This is an example of the clarification which arises when you try to represent the meaning of each rdf: Note that the "URI" data type does not just constrain the value string to be a valid URI, but indicated that the value string is the document you get when you dereference the URI. Big difference, particularly when you automate the base 64 decoding of something.
A comparison would be a useful exercise. That is a terrible bit of design - a typical bit of interference between different headers which is so temping for designers in these flat specs which can't use nesting.
How many other clauses like this are there? It is difficult to specify that a string has a language without making an intermediate node that you don't want. This is, I realize the same as the intermediate packaging problem: Here is a number and by the way it is prime. Here is a common name and by the way it is in English.
It is interesting to see the way iCalendar has the same problem. This is a bug. This is not in fact a property of an event, but is a property of a given expression of the state of an event. In a peer-peer world, it is not obvious what to do. I skipped most of the rest of the spec but a few very similar concerns arose with some other parts I glanced at. It seems that RDF nodes for the calendar, for each event etc, and for each icalendar: A spinoff would be a vocabulary which would include useful reusable models of time.
The timezone work could be factored out if it is definitive. Where RDF mapping was not obvious this sometimes coincided with unclear aspects of the specification. The columns E, T etc indicate whether the subject of the property is permitted to be an event, todo, journal, freebusy, alarm or timezone component.
There must be a much better list of resources for hacking calendar files of various formats - but until I find it here are some random things I found. Constraints in the spec.
Was value of encoding "property"which was faulty model. Why not call it content-type?! Applies to a document. Expect the implit uri proprerty to tell you which object.
Wait and see wether it is a separate dimension. See spec for properties including this in their domain. Could be a problem. Not a property of an event, but its presence makes it a reference to a specific occurrence of a repeated event.