Meeting Feb 14 - agenda notes

Not sure whether we need a meeting today...other than announcements.
Toby may not be available.
I spent some quality time with Mike yesterday, but I'm not ready yet
for PIM WD08; I'm working to clarify the issues that the example
work-through and the time with Mike raised.
I discovered some issues in working through examples from CS01, and
the new internet drafts on Icalendar relationships
( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-douglass-ical-relations-02  ) and
availability ( http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-daboo-calendar-availability-05
).
Key issues:
Some of the CS01 examples are a bit obscure but apparently
correct; some I'm not sure of yet. So the examples are of
varying quality IMO but non-normative.
The terminology for granularity and precision is not as clear
as it could be, and suggests different PIM approaches
granularity appears only in vavailability. Gluons do not have
granularity, which is not perfectly aligned with the CS01 text.
precision suggests a global configuration or capability for
resolution on times  but is only in ToleranceValueType (as in
CS01) - this needs consideration as to the scope and inheritance
Relationship of granularity and precision could be more clear
(and the clarity will guide the PIM
The division of iCal/xCal  relationships  into
relationshipType  and  temporalRelationshipType  needs to be
re-examined. These are combined in the relations draft
in xCal tZ is a property that can apply to any object; in PIM
WD07 it's an attibute of IntervalType and its subclass
GluonType, which has dtStart (and in PSMs could have dtEnd);
inheritance needs to be clear. Is it an issue to have tZ apply
to an entire sequence? I would suggest that a single timezone is
entirely appropriate and a simplification.
Per meeting discussion, tolerance is part of
DurationValueType, but the duration is perhaps a degree of
freedom too much if you also add fuzziness (startafter,
startbefore, endafter, endbefore) to the end points. This may be
better addressed as a constraint on values.
Diagrams of examples (object diagrams in UML) aren't as clear
as they could be because the tool (Enterprise Architect) doesn't
have a good way of expressing nested object instances. I've
attached a first pass at Examples 3-12 - there are also no clean
ways to draw arrows to show actual time sequences. I'm planning
separate timeline drawings.
I'm hoping for a full update with all the examples circa February
24, as I am tied up with the Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
conference where Toby and I have a paper (unrelated to scheduling,
but related to microgrids and structured energy).
Thanks!
bill

--
William Cox
Email:  
Web:  http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax
Attachment:
Directional Relationship.png
Description:  PNG image
Attachment:
Example 3-12.png
Description:  PNG image