ws-calendar — archive

UML reveals issue in WS-Calendar PSM

From: William Cox <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:01:00 -0000

Not sure this requires action. Since Vavailability is a component it implicitly has the interval, and the rrules (could be wrong here) would similarly have implicit intervals. The PIM has to make it explicit, bringing the implicitly understood context out. BTW I also looked carefully at the Vavailability draft, and dtStart/duration is just fine. Anything to reduce the multiplicity of interval expressions is a step forward IMO. Thanks! bill On 7/31/14 4:54 PM, Toby Considine wrote: The detailed work of the PIM revealed some flaws in the PSM spec. Notably: The degenerate bound intervals at the heart of FREEBUSY and AVAILABILITY are never adequately defined in the spec or in the Schemas. The RRULES used in Availability are not adequately represented in VAVAILABILITY. If these issues are interesting to you, I urge you to attend the workshop meeting tomorrow to discuss the implications for the PSM. tc Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. - Brian W. Kernighan Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar OASIS TC Editor: EMIX, Energy Interoperation SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee Email: [email protected] Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com