Subject: Re: Event owner in ICAL schema

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:43:53 -0500

Doug wrote on 02/07/2002 06:27:48 PM:
> Because ORGANIZER is a scheduling thing, and no one
> is going to own the contents of a VTIMEZONE.

Sigh!  I think everyone has started to loose sight of some definitions of 
iCalendar properties.

In RFC 2445 we designed ORGANIZER to be the focal point of all scheduling 
workflow (by definition calendaring has NO workflow).  As such, if I have 
an entry on my calendar that is not involved in workflow then it can have 
NO ORGANIZER.  Is that so hard to grok??

I think you are treating ORGANIZER as "Owner" of an entry and that is NOT 
what it is designed for.  If there is no workflow involved, then the CU 
who created it is the "Owner".  It could be argued that in the case of an 
AA creating entries on a calendar in something like CAP that the "Owner" 
is the CU whose calendar it is, not whose actually creating the entry. 
("Sue, set up a meeting for me and Doug tomorrow afternoon to discuss IETF 
stuff...")  That however is NOT was was originally asked so you wandered 
afield (and workflow is involved in my example).

WRT to CAP we have yet to actually cover this (at least from what Ive 
scanned) but in direct answer to Lata's query the answers given were 
wrong.  Thats not my opinion, its RFC 2445 talking. 

> And because the owner of non-iTIP objects is dependent
> on who stores it in CAP. If I give you a copy of VTIMEZONE
> for Pacific (US) time, do you or I own it?

Digress all you like but it was not what Lata asked about...

> > You can define your own custom vendor extension (ie: X-ORCL-OWNER) and
> > include it on all non-workflow entries.  For any workflow entities,
> > ORGANIZER is what you want...
> 
> By workflow - your mean scheduling as defined by iTIP?

You know what workflow is but if you need a refresher, may I suggest 
skimming the RFCs again...  Any other definition is not what we've used in 
this WG and cannot be used safely as a basis for discussion.

Just to be sure folks hear Ill say it again:  For cases where workflow is 
involved, ORGANIZER _IS_ the way to go.  For cases where no workflow is involves, ORGANIZER _IS NOT_ allowed!

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:13:16 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> Sigh!  I think everyone has started to loose sight of some definitions
> of iCalendar properties.

Bruce - 'workflow' must have some meaning to you. To me
it means iTIP. Is that what it means to you? (it is only used
once in 2445, twice in 2446, and never defined).

> In RFC 2445 we designed ORGANIZER to be the focal point of all
> scheduling workflow (by definition calendaring has NO workflow).  As
> such, if I have an entry on my calendar that is not involved in
> workflow then it can have NO ORGANIZER.  Is that so hard to grok??
> ...

I think that we are saying the same thing - but I am not
sure what you means when you say 'workflow' with respect
to 2445.

> I think you are treating ORGANIZER as "Owner" of an entry and that is
> NOT what it is designed for.
> ...

No - I was just guessing that he might of meant ORGANIZER.