Subject: Re: Event owner in ICAL schema

From: Alan Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:31:11 -0500

At 05:03 PM 07/02/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>  However I think several folks have forgotten the text that describes the 
> ORGANIZER property.  What they seemingly correclty suggested is actually 
> NOT allowed.
>    Conformance: This property MUST be specified in an iCalendar object
>   that specifies a group scheduled calendar entity. This property MUST
>   be specified in an iCalendar object that specifies the publication of
>   a calendar user's busy time. This property MUST NOT be specified in
>   an iCalendar object that specifies only a time zone definition or
>   that defines calendar entities that are not group scheduled entities,
>   but are entities only on a single user's calendar.
>
>(emphasis mine).  So, as such for calendar entries that do not involve 
>others there is no 'concept' of an Owner or Organizer as we call them in 
>iCalendar.  Unfortunately at this time I do not recally why we chose to 
>include this particular restriction (at least the latter half of 
>it).  Perhaps we can nudge Frank Dawson or someone else whose equally long 
>in the CalSched tooth to recall why.  (Im sure once mentioned Ill probably 
>slap my forehad and say "Oh, of course!" but in the mean time Ill just 
>scratch my head a bit...)

That text is a very strange (it seems to contradict iTIP 3.2.1, which
specifies that a PUBLISH must have an ORGANIZER, but must not have
ATTENDEEs), but I don't see why our answers were so wrong unless
Lata's original schema does not allow for group scheduling.

When you say 'calendar entries that do not involve others' would the
case of an entity where the ORGANIZER is the sole ATTENDEE count
as involving others, which would therefore allow the ORGANIZER property
to be present?

Doug's reply about CAP and VAGENDAs seemed a more correct
way to represent the concept of 'owner' in a schema, although the
original question was about iCalendar alone.

--Alan

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:40:50 -0700

> Lata's original schema does not allow for group scheduling.

A PUBLISH is a public announcement of a open calendar object.
So you are thinking group only means 'group of named people'.

It also means an object where a group of people have access and the
members of that group are unknown - PUBLISH. As in it is not privately
held. The last part of the 'Conformance:' section of:

	 4.8.4.3 Organizer

	...This property MUST NOT be specified in
   an iCalendar object that specifies only a time zone definition or
   that defines calendar entities that are not group scheduled entities,
   but are entities only on a single user's calendar.

PUBLISH is clearly not just for one users calendar.

I do not see a contradiction? Or did I miss your point?

> as involving others, which would therefore allow the ORGANIZER property

If the object is private to the user calendar and will NOT be
distributed to anyone else - that is outside the scope of all
of iCalendar, iTIP, iMIP, and CAP - as there would not be a
need for interoperability. So if that is the case, the
X-property's would be how to deal with that. And the CUA or CS
would never distribute it with standard protocols?