Subject: RE: Fuzzy Logic

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:50:46 GMT

>I do not believe one should call our request for scheduling times an 
attempt
>to introduce ambiguity into property values.

Greg:
I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I certainly was not 
criticizing your intension or requirements. The work of the SKiCal project 
in attempting to standardize events on a national scale is to be 
commended. Rather, my intentions were to point out that we already have an 
existing calendar data model in iCalendar. In that model, events have a 
precise start and end date/time. Rather than begin with a "clean slate", 
it would be advantagous to evolve our existing model.
Supporting an "event" with no scheduled start and end date/time does, in 
fact, introduce ambiguity in the data integrity of the existing iCalendar 
model. That was my only point. No "fussiness" about it.
My arguments were that we could introduce "float" or flexibility in the 
scheduling of events and probably _not_ introduce any such ambiguity in 
the start/end date/times for an event. I gave an example of the iCalendar 
coding for this. Any comments on the explicit example?
Rather an add via revolution, my suggestion to the mailing list was that 
we add support for loosely scheduled events via evolution of the existing 
model. I think you would agree with that approach?
-- Frank