RFC 9253 iCalendar Relationships July 2022
Douglass Standards Track [Page]
Stream:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC:
9253
Updates:
5545
Category:
Standards Track
Published:
ISSN:
2070-1721
Author:
M. Douglass
Bedework

RFC 9253

Support for iCalendar Relationships

Abstract

This specification updates the iCalendar RELATED-TO property defined in RFC 5545 by adding new relation types and introduces new iCalendar properties (LINK, CONCEPT, and REFID) to allow better linking and grouping of iCalendar components and related data.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9253.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

iCalendar entities defined in [RFC5545] often need to be related to each other or to associated metadata. The specifications below support relationships of the following forms:

Structured iCalendar:
iCalendar entities can be related to each other in some structured way, for example, as parent, sibling, before, or after.
Grouped iCalendar:
iCalendar entities can be related to each other as a group. CATEGORIES are often used for this purpose but are problematic for application developers due to their lack of consistency and use as a free-form tag.
Linked:
Entities can be linked to other entities, such as vCards, through a URI and associated REL and FMTTYPE parameters.

1.1. Structured iCalendar Relationships

The iCalendar [RFC5545] RELATED-TO property has no support for temporal relationships as used by project management tools.

The RELTYPE parameter is extended to take new values defining temporal relationships, a GAP parameter is defined to provide lead and lag values, and RELATED-TO is extended to allow URI values. These changes allow the RELATED-TO property to define a richer set of relationships useful for project management.

1.2. Grouped iCalendar Relationships

This specification defines a new REFID property, which allows arbitrary groups of entities to be associated with the same key value.

REFID is used to identify a key allowing the association of components that are all related to the referring, aggregating component and the retrieval of components based on this key. For example, this may be used to identify the tasks associated with a given project without having to communicate the task structure of the project. A further example is the grouping of all sub-tasks associated with the delivery of a specific package in a package delivery system.

As such, the presence of a REFID property imparts no meaning to the component. It is merely a key to allow retrieval. This is distinct from categorization, which, while allowing grouping, also adds meaning to the component to which it is attached.

1.3. Concept Relationships

The name CONCEPT is used by the Simple Knowledge Organization System, as defined in [W3C.REC-skos-reference-20090818]. The term "concept" more accurately defines what we often mean by a category. It's not the text string that is important but the meaning attached to it. For example, the term "football" can mean very different sports.

The introduction of CONCEPT allows a more structured approach to categorization, with the possibility of namespaced and path-like values. Unlike REFID, the CONCEPT property imparts some meaning. It is assumed that the value of this property will reference a well-defined category.

The current CATEGORIES property defined in [RFC5545] is used as a free-form 'tagging' field. These values have some meaning to those who apply them but not necessarily to any consumer. As such, it is difficult to establish formal relationships between components based on their category.

Rather than attempt to add semantics to the CATEGORIES property, it seems best to continue its usage as an informal tag and establish a new CONCEPT property with more constraints.

1.4. Linked Relationships

The currently existing iCalendar standard [RFC5545] lacks a general purpose method for referencing additional, external information relating to calendar components.

This document proposes a method for referencing typed external information that can provide additional information about an iCalendar component. This new LINK property is closely aligned to [RFC8288], which defines the generic concept of Web Linking, as well as its expression in the HTTP LINK header field.

The LINK property defines a typed reference or relation to external metadata or related resources. By providing type and format information as parameters, clients and servers are able to discover interesting references and make use of them, perhaps for indexing or the presentation of interesting links for the user.

Calendar components are often grouped into collections to represent a calendar or a series of tasks, for example, Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV) calendar collections [RFC4791].

It is also often necessary to reference calendar components in other collections. For example, a VEVENT might refer to a VTODO from which it was derived. The PARENT, SIBLING, and CHILD relationships defined for the RELATED-TO property only allow for a unique identifier (UID), which is inadequate for many purposes. Allowing other value types for those relationships may help but would cause backward-compatibility issues. The LINK property can link components in different collections or even on different servers.

When publishing events, it is useful to be able to refer back to the source of that information. The actual event may have been consumed from a feed or an ics file on a website. A LINK property can provide a reference to the originator of the event.

Beyond the need to relate elements temporally, project management tools often need to be able to specify the relationships between the various events and tasks that make up a project. The LINK property provides such a mechanism.

The LINK property MUST NOT be treated as just another attachment. The ATTACH property defined in [RFC5545] has been extended by [RFC8607] to handle server-side management and stripping of inline data and to provide additional data about the attachment (size, filename, etc.).

Additionally, clients may choose to handle attachments differently from the LINK property, as attachments are often an integral part of the message, for example, the agenda.

1.5. Caching and Offline Use

In general, the calendar entity should be self explanatory without the need to download referenced metadata, such as a web page.

However, to facilitate offline display, the link type may identify important pieces of data that should be downloaded in advance.

1.6. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The notation used in this memo to (re-)define iCalendar elements is the ABNF notation of [RFC5234], as used by [RFC5545]. Any syntax elements shown below that are not explicitly defined in this specification come from iCalendar [RFC5545].

4. New Temporal RELTYPE Parameter Values

This section defines the usual temporal relationships for use with the RELTYPE parameter defined in Section 3.2.15 of [RFC5545]: FINISHTOSTART, FINISHTOFINISH, STARTTOFINISH, or STARTTOSTART.

The [RFC5545] RELATED-TO property with one or more of these temporal relationships will be present in the predecessor entity and will refer to the successor entity.

The GAP parameter (see Section 6.2) specifies the lead (a negative value) or lag (a positive value) time between the predecessor and the successor.

In the description of each temporal relationship below, we refer to Task-A, which contains and controls the relationship, and Task-B, which is the target of the relationship. This is indicated by the direction of the arrows in the diagrams below.

Also, each relationship may be modified by the addition of a GAP parameter to the relationship that applies to the targeted component.

RELTYPE=FINISHTOSTART:

Task-B cannot start until Task-A finishes. For example, when painting is complete, carpet laying can begin.

            ============
            |  Task-A  |
            ============
                       |
                       V
                       ============
                       |  Task-B  |
                       ============
Figure 1: Finish-to-Start Relationship
RELTYPE=FINISHTOFINISH:

Task-B can only be completed after Task-A is finished. The related tasks may run in parallel before completion.

For example, in the development of two related pieces of software (e.g., the API and the implementation), the design of the implementation (Task-B) cannot be completed until the design of the API (Task-A) has been completed.

                    ==================
                    |     Task-A     |--+
                    ==================  |
                                        |
                          ============  |
                          |  Task-B  |<-+
                          ============
Figure 2: Finish-to-Finish Relationship
RELTYPE=STARTTOFINISH:

The start of Task-A (which occurs after Task-B) controls the finish of Task-B. For example, ticket sales (Task-B) end after the game starts (Task-A).

                           ============
                        +--|  Task-A  |
                        |  ============
                        +---------+
                    ============  |
                    |  Task-B  |<-+
                    ============
Figure 3: Start-to-Finish Relationship
RELTYPE=STARTTOSTART:

The start of Task-A triggers the start of Task-B, that is, Task-B can start anytime after Task-A starts.

                    ============
                 +--|  Task-A  |
                 |  ============
                 |
                 |  ============
                 +->|  Task-B  |
                    ============
Figure 4: Start-to-Start Relationship

5. Additional New RELTYPE Parameter Values

This section defines the additional relationships below:

RELTYPE=FIRST:
This indicates that the referenced calendar component is the first in a series the referencing calendar component is part of.
RELTYPE=NEXT:
This indicates that the referenced calendar component is the next in a series the referencing calendar component is part of.
RELTYPE=DEPENDS-ON:
This indicates that the current calendar component depends on the referenced calendar component in some manner. For example, a task may be blocked waiting on the other, referenced, task.
RELTYPE=REFID:
This establishes a reference from the current component to components with a REFID property that matches the value given in the associated RELATED-TO property.
RELTYPE=CONCEPT:
This establishes a reference from the current component to components with a CONCEPT property that matches the value given in the associated RELATED-TO property.

Note that the relationship types of PARENT, CHILD, and SIBLING establish a hierarchical relationship. The new types of FIRST and NEXT are an ordering relationship.

6. New Property Parameters

Parameter name:
LINKREL
Purpose:
This property specifies the relationship of data referenced by a LINK property.
Format Definition:

This parameter is defined by the following notation:

linkrelparam = "LINKREL" "="
                (DQUOTE uri DQUOTE
               / iana-token)   ; Other IANA registered type
Description:

This parameter MUST be specified on all LINK properties and define the type of reference. This allows programs consuming this data to automatically scan for references they support. There is no default relation type.

Any link relation in the link registry established by [RFC8288], or new link relations, may be used. It is expected that link relation types seeing significant usage in calendaring will have the calendaring usage described in an RFC.

LINKREL=latest-version:
This identifies the latest version of the event information.
Registration:
These relation types are registered in [RFC8288].

6.2. Gap

Parameter name:
GAP
Purpose:
This property specifies the length of the gap, positive or negative, between two components with a temporal relationship.
Format Definition:

This parameter is defined by the following notation, where dur-value is defined in Section 3.3.6 of [RFC5545]. :

  gapparam      = "GAP" "=" dur-value
Description:

This parameter MAY be specified on the RELATED-TO property and defines the duration of time between the predecessor and successor in an interval. When positive, it defines the lag time between a task and its logical successor. When negative, it defines the lead time.

An example of lag time might be if Task-A is "paint the room" and Task-B is "lay the carpets". Then, Task-A may be related to Task-B with RELTYPE=FINISHTOSTART with a gap of 1 day -- long enough for the paint to dry.

            ====================
            |  paint the room  |--+
            ====================  |
                                  |(lag of one day)
                                  |
                                  |  ===================
                                  +->| lay the carpet  |
                                     ===================
Figure 5: Finish-to-Start Relationship with Lag

For an example of lead time, in constructing a two-story building, the electrical work must be done before painting. However, the painter can move in to the first floor as the electricians move upstairs.

            =====================
            |  electrical work  |--+
            =====================  |
                     +-------------+
                     |(lead of estimated time)
                     |  ==================
                     +->|    painting    |
                        ==================
Figure 6: Finish-to-Start Relationship with Lead

7. New Value Data Types

This specification defines the following new value types to be used with the VALUE property parameter:

UID:
VALUE=UID indicates that the associated value is the UID for a component.
XML-REFERENCE:
VALUE=XML-REFERENCE indicates that the associated value references an associated XML artifact and is a URI with an XPointer anchor value. The XPointer is defined in [W3C.WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219], and its use as an anchor is defined in [W3C.REC-xptr-framework-20030325].

8. New Properties

8.1. Concept

Property name:
CONCEPT
Purpose:
This property defines the formal categories for a calendar component.
Value type:
URI
Property Parameters:
IANA and non-standard parameters can be specified on this property.
Conformance:
This property can be specified zero or more times in any iCalendar component.
Description:

This property is used to specify formal categories or classifications of the calendar component. The values are useful in searching for a calendar component of a particular type and category.

This categorization is distinct from the more informal "tagging" of components provided by the existing CATEGORIES property. It is expected that the value of the CONCEPT property will reference an external resource that provides information about the categorization.

In addition, a structured URI value allows for hierarchical categorization of events.

Possible category resources are the various proprietary systems, for example, the Library of Congress, or an open source of categorization data.

Format Definition:

This property is defined by the following notation:

  concept        =  "CONCEPT" conceptparam ":"
                        uri CRLF

  conceptparam = *(";" other-param)
Example:

The following is an example of this property. It points to a server acting as the source for the calendar object.

  CONCEPT:https://example.com/event-types/arts/music

8.3. Refid

Property name:
REFID
Purpose:
This property value acts as a key for associated iCalendar entities.
Value type:
TEXT
Property Parameters:
Non-standard parameters can be specified on this property.
Conformance:
This property can be specified zero or more times in any iCalendar component.
Description:
The value of this property is free-form text that creates an identifier for associated components. All components that use the same REFID value are associated through that value and can be located or retrieved as a group. For example, all of the events in a travel itinerary would have the same REFID value, so as to be grouped together.
Format Definition:

This property is defined by the following notation:

  refid      = "REFID" refidparam ":" text CRLF


  refidparam      = *(";" other-param)
Example:

The following is an example of this property.

  REFID:itinerary-2014-11-17

9. Updates to RFC 5545

This specification updates the RELATED-TO property defined in Section 3.8.4.5 of [RFC5545]. The contents of Section 9.1 replace that section.

The RELTYPE parameter is extended to take new values defining temporal relationships, a GAP parameter is defined to provide lead and lag values, and RELATED-TO is extended to allow URI values. These changes allow the RELATED-TO property to define a richer set of relationships useful for project management.

10. Security Considerations

All of the security considerations of Section 7 of [RFC5545] apply to this specification.

Applications using the LINK property need to be aware of the risks entailed in using the URIs provided as values. See Section 7 of [RFC3986] for a discussion of the security considerations relating to URIs.

In particular, note Section 7.1 (Reliability and Consistency) of [RFC3986], which points out the lack of a stability guarantee for referenced resources.

When the value is an XML-REFERENCE type, the targeted data is an XML document or portion thereof. Consumers need to be aware of the security issues related to XML processing -- in particular, those related to XML entities. See Section 20.6 of [RFC4918]. Additionally, note that the reference may be invalid or become so over time.

The CONCEPT and redefined RELATED-TO properties have the same issues in that values may be URIs.

Extremely large values for the GAP parameter may lead to unexpected behavior.

11. IANA Considerations

11.1. iCalendar Property Registrations

The following iCalendar property names have been added to the iCalendar "Properties" registry defined in Section 8.3.2 of [RFC5545]. IANA has also added a reference to this document, where the properties originally defined in [RFC5545] have been updated by this document.

Table 1
Property Status Reference
CONCEPT Current Section 8.1
LINK Current Section 8.2
REFID Current Section 8.3
RELATED-TO Current [RFC5545], Section 3.8.4.5; RFC 9253, Section 9.1

11.2. iCalendar Property Parameter Registrations

The following iCalendar property parameter names have been added to the iCalendar "Parameters" registry defined in Section 8.3.3 of [RFC5545].

Table 2
Parameter Status Reference
GAP Current Section 6.2
LINKREL Current Section 6.1

11.3. iCalendar Value Data Type Registrations

The following iCalendar property parameter names have been added to the iCalendar "Value Data Types" registry defined in Section 8.3.4 of [RFC5545].

Table 3
Value Data Type Status Reference
XML-REFERENCE Current Section 7
UID Current Section 7

11.4. iCalendar RELTYPE Value Registrations

The following iCalendar "RELTYPE" values have been added to the iCalendar "Relationship Types" registry defined in Section 8.3.8 of [RFC5545].

Table 4
Relationship Type Status Reference
CONCEPT Current Section 5
DEPENDS-ON Current Section 5
FINISHTOFINISH Current Section 4
FINISHTOSTART Current Section 4
FIRST Current Section 5
NEXT Current Section 5
REFID Current Section 5
STARTTOFINISH Current Section 4
STARTTOSTART Current Section 4

12. References

12.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986]
Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4918]
Dusseault, L., Ed., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, DOI 10.17487/RFC4918, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4918>.
[RFC5234]
Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5545]
Desruisseaux, B., Ed., "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)", RFC 5545, DOI 10.17487/RFC5545, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545>.
[RFC7986]
Daboo, C., "New Properties for iCalendar", RFC 7986, DOI 10.17487/RFC7986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7986>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8288]
Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[W3C.REC-skos-reference-20090818]
Miles, A. and S. Bechhofer, "SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference", W3C Recommendation REC-skos-reference-20090818, , <https://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818>.
[W3C.REC-xptr-framework-20030325]
Grosso, P., Maler, E., Marsh, J., and N. Walsh, "XPointer Framework", W3C Recommendation REC-xptr-framework-20030325, , <https://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325>.
[W3C.WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219]
DeRose, S., Maler, E., and R. Daniel, "XPointer xpointer() Scheme", W3C WD WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219, , <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219>.

12.2. Informative References

[RFC4791]
Daboo, C., Desruisseaux, B., and L. Dusseault, "Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)", RFC 4791, DOI 10.17487/RFC4791, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4791>.
[RFC8607]
Daboo, C., Quillaud, A., and K. Murchison, Ed., "Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV): Managed Attachments", RFC 8607, DOI 10.17487/RFC8607, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8607>.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the members of CalConnect, the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium technical committees, and the following individuals for contributing their ideas, support, and comments:

Adrian Apthorp, Cyrus Daboo, Marten Gajda, and Ken Murchison

The author would also like to thank CalConnect and the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium for advice with this specification.

Author's Address

Michael Douglass
Bedework
226 3rd Street
Troy, NY 12180
United States of America
URI: https://bedework.com