Subject: Event owner in ICAL schema

From: Lata Kannan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:46:01 +0530

Hi,

We already have an existing Calendar application using our proprietory
database schema, proprietory APIs and a Web client interface. We are now
in the process of creating a new ICAL compliant calendar schema.  In our
existing calendar, we have every appointment owned by a person, namely
an event_owner, every todo owned by a todo_owner and every journal owned
by a journal owner. This is a mandatory field for every appointment,
todo and journal.    As far as we have understood the RFC 2445, we are
not able to find an equivalent attribute wherein we coudl store this
information.  The RFC does not seem to mandate any field and nothing
wherein we could store this existing attribute of the calendar.  As of
now we are planning to add this attribute to the VEVENT table which we
create in our ICAL schema.

Is there anything that we are missing out here?  Any inputs on this
would really help.

Thanks in advance
Lata

---

From: Alan Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:40:29 -0500

iCalendar has the concept of an ORGANIZER, but it's not
mandatory in RFC 2445. Is this the same information that
you wanted to represent?

RFC2446 (iTIP) defines an interoperability protocol for
exchange of iCalendar objects, and specifies that ORGANIZER
must be present for all methods (except 'REFRESH').

I notice that you refer to a "VEVENT table" - did you follow
the recent thread about creating a virtual iCalendar relational
schema for CAP that would allow queries to be made using SQL-92?

If you didn't, the main problems were:
     - Components can contain other components.
     - Properties can appear multiple times in a component.
     - Properties can have several named parameters, as well as a value.
     - Some property values are comma-separated lists.

(One of several threads that made up this discussion:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg02877.html )

--Alan

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:17:05 -0700

> Is there anything that we are missing out here?  Any inputs on this

Have your read the Calendar Access Protocol draft (CAP) available at
www.calsch.org.

RFC 2445 specifies how to describe an object.
RFC 2446 specifies how to do scheduling.
RFC 2447 specifies how to email RFC 2446 objects.

And CAP specifies (among other things), how objects are stored
into a calendar owned by an entity.  We did not put the owner
in each object. Instead we define a logical object called
a VAGENDA, which contains RFC 2445 objects that are all owned
by a named set of owners.

In addition CAP specifies how to put (CREATE), fetch (QUERY),
and update (MODIFY) those objects.