Technical Team/Field Names - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-06T12:56:51Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 20:30, 7 April 2011

2011-04-07T20:30:10Z

K.stewart: Update the open questions, to just the areas still under discussion.

2011-04-07T18:47:36Z

Update the open questions, to just the areas still under discussion.

Bschineller at 19:04, 30 March 2011

2011-03-30T19:04:18Z

Goneall at 18:47, 29 March 2011

2011-03-29T18:47:39Z

Pezra at 14:58, 29 March 2011

2011-03-29T14:58:51Z

Goneall at 05:20, 29 March 2011

2011-03-29T05:20:57Z

K.stewart at 19:22, 28 March 2011

2011-03-28T19:22:59Z

Bschineller at 16:30, 22 March 2011

2011-03-22T16:30:42Z

Bschineller at 19:04, 15 March 2011

2011-03-15T19:04:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 6 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p><strong>~~Added bug id's to version #14 for all P1 bugs, so now version 15 is current.~~</strong></p><p><strong>~~Version 14 is updated to be current with the draft spec as of the start of the face to face meeting.~~</strong></p><p><strong>~~Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are: ~~<br /></strong></p><p>~~?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?~~</p><p>~~? web page for standard licenses~~</p>~~	+	'''Added bug id's to version #14 for all P1 bugs, so now version 15 is current.'''
		+
		+	'''Version 14 is updated to be current with the draft spec as of the start of the face to face meeting.'''
		+
		+	'''Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are:'''
		+
		+	?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?
		+
		+	? web page for standard licenses
		+
		+	[[Category:Technical]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 7 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p><strong>~~Current~~ version is #14,~~  and draft spec should be reflecting them~~.</strong></p><p>~~ ~~</p><p><strong>Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are: <br /></strong></p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p>? web page for standard licenses</p>	+	<p><strong>Added bug id's to version #14 for all P1 bugs, so now version 15 is current.</strong></p><p><strong>Version 14 is updated to be current with the draft spec as of the start of the face to face meeting.</strong></p><p><strong>Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are: <br /></strong></p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p>? web page for standard licenses</p>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 7 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p><strong>~~Field names have drifted~~,  ~~this is to capture comments~~ and ~~harmonize between the formats~~.</strong></p><p>~~3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains </p><p>-~~  ~~yes, want this for ease converting between formats.~~ </p><p>~~3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.~~</p>~~<p>- changed to just copyright.</p><p>4.1 This is the uri/node id~~ of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p><p>- based on discussion ~~in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear.~~ </p>~~<p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?~~</p>~~<p>- changed this to reviewed</p><p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p><p>- went with comments~~</p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p>~~spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax~~ </p>	+	<p><strong>Current version is #14,  and draft spec should be reflecting them.</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are: <br /></strong></p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p>? web page for standard licenses</p>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<p><strong>Field names have drifted,&nbsp; this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.</strong></p>
+<p><strong>Field names have drifted,&nbsp; this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.</strong></p><p>3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains </p><p>-&nbsp; yes, want this for ease converting between formats. </p><p>3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.</p><p>- changed to just copyright.</p><p>4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p><p>- based on discussion in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear. </p><p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</p><p>- changed this to reviewed</p><p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p><p>- went with comments</p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p>spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax </p>
-−
 <p>3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains </p><p>-&nbsp; yes, want this for ease converting between formats. </p>
-−
 <p>3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.</p><p>- changed to just copyright.</p>
-−
 <p>4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p>
-−
 <p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p>
-−
 <p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p><p>- based on discussion in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear. </p>
-−
 <p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</p><p>- changed this to reviewed</p>
-−
 <p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p><p>- went with comments</p>
-−
 <p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p>
-−
 <p> spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax </p>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <p><strong>Field names have drifted,&nbsp; this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.</strong></p>
-<p>3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains</p>
+<p>3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains </p><p>-&nbsp; yes, want this for ease converting between formats. </p>
-<p>3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.</p>
+<p>3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.</p><p>- changed to just copyright.</p>
-<p>4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is no necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p>
+<p>4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p>
-<p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is no necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p>
+<p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p>
-<p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p>
+<p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p><p>- based on discussion in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear. </p>
-<p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</p>
+<p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</p><p>- changed this to reviewed</p>
-<p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p>
+<p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p><p>- went with comments</p>
 <p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p>
 <p> spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax </p>

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:04, 30 March 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:47, 29 March 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:58, 29 March 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:30, 22 March 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:04, 15 March 2011
(No difference)