MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-06T12:56:51Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 22:18, 25 January 2011

2011-01-25T22:18:36Z

New page

Minutes 1/25/2011Attendees:Bill Schineller Gary O'Neall Peter Williams Kate StewartSummary of follow-up items from the call:<ul><li>License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names.  Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.  </li><li>Document and review the algorithm for creating the xor'd sha1's from the file list</li><li>Change the description in the source information field in the package section</li><li>Discuss/decide if the package level asserted license should be optional or mandatory</li><li>Rename "asserted license" to "asserted licensing"</li><li>Future topic- should there be additional optional fields for non-standard licenses?</li><li>Add a comment for the reviewer in the review section</li><li>Reconcile the tag names with the SPDX overview</li><li>consider a more consistent naming convention</li></ul>Minute details:Review spdx overview slides sent by Kate - purpose to align on the current status of the spec:  Section Headers in the spec - Reviewer information has been moved to a separate section at the end  License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names.  Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.  Note that embedded is somewhat ambiguous - used for "embedded in the package" as opposed to "embedded in the SPDX file"  Identification section - Version of SPDX - does it make sense in the RDF spec?  Topic for future discussion.  Identification section - Method of xor for all file sha's to generate overall checksum - need to publish and review the specific algorithm  The package file sha is optional in case the spdx file is embedded  Source information - change description to reflect additional information on the source rather than anomalies (e.g. the download URL is no longer available)  Package level - agree to add asserted license   Asserted may include logic (and/or disjunctive/etc)   Seen licenses would just be a list   Not clear if asserted license at the package level should be mandatory or optional - future discussion  Copyright - just a string for release 1 of SPDX    Should there be additional optional tags in the non-standard license?  Topic for a future proposal.  File - Asserted License -> Asserted Licensing (takes care of possibility of multiple licenses)  File - Seen license - can be multiple licenses   Cardinality - does it make sense to have a mandatory field that may contain 0 items  - yes since it confirms that "none were found"  Reviews - should there be a comment for the reviewer?  Yes - add this as an optional field.Todo: reconcile the tag names with the spdx overview Need a better naming convention - add to topic for next week's call - suggestion to invite the individual providing the feedback to the call.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 6 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p>Minutes 1/25/2011</p><p>~~Attendees~~:</p><p>~~Bill Schineller~~<br />~~Gary O'Neall~~<br />~~Peter Williams~~<br />~~Kate Stewart~~</p><p>~~Summary of follow-up items from the call~~:</p><ul><li>~~License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names.~~ ~~ Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.~~  </li><li>~~Document and review the algorithm for creating the xor'd sha1's from the file list~~</li><li>~~Change the description in the source information field in the package section~~</li><li>~~Discuss/decide if the package level asserted license should be optional or mandatory~~</li><li>~~Rename "asserted license" to "asserted licensing"~~</li><li>~~Future topic- should there be additional optional fields for non-standard licenses?~~</li><li>~~Add a comment for the reviewer in the review section~~</li><li>~~Reconcile the tag names with the SPDX overview~~</li><li>~~consider a more consistent naming convention~~</li></ul><p>~~Minute details~~:</p><p>~~Review spdx overview slides sent by Kate - purpose to align on the current status of the spec:~~<br /> ~~Section Headers in the spec - Reviewer information has been moved to a separate section at the end~~<br /> ~~License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names.~~ ~~ Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.~~ ~~ Note that embedded is somewhat ambiguous - used for "embedded in the package" as opposed to "embedded in the SPDX file"~~<br /> ~~Identification section - Version of SPDX - does it make sense in the RDF spec?~~ ~~ Topic for future discussion.~~<br /> ~~Identification section - Method of xor for all file sha's to generate overall checksum - need to publish and review the specific algorithm~~<br /> ~~The package file sha is optional in case the spdx file is embedded~~<br /> ~~Source information - change description to reflect additional information on the source rather than anomalies (e.g. the download URL is no longer available)~~<br /> ~~Package level - agree to add asserted license~~<br />  ~~Asserted may include logic (and/or disjunctive/etc)~~<br />  ~~Seen licenses would just be a list~~<br />  ~~Not clear if asserted license at the package level should be mandatory or optional - future discussion~~<br /> ~~Copyright - just a string for release 1 of SPDX~~<br /> <br /> ~~Should there be additional optional tags in the non-standard license?~~ ~~ Topic for a future proposal.~~<br /> ~~File - Asserted License ~~->~~ Asserted Licensing (takes care of possibility of multiple licenses)~~<br /> ~~File - Seen license - can be multiple licenses~~<br />  ~~Cardinality - does it make sense to have a mandatory field that may contain 0 items~~ ~~ - yes since it confirms that "none were found"~~<br /> ~~Reviews - should there be a comment for the reviewer?~~ ~~ Yes - add this as an optional field.~~</p><p>~~Todo: reconcile the tag names with the spdx overview~~<br />~~Need a better naming convention - add to topic for next week's call - suggestion to invite the individual providing the feedback to the call.~~</p>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Bill Schineller
		+	* Gary O'Neall
		+	* Peter Williams
		+	* Kate Stewart
		+
		+	== Summary of follow-up items from the call ==
		+
		+	* License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names. Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.
		+	* Document and review the algorithm for creating the xor'd sha1's from the file list
		+	* Change the description in the source information field in the package section
		+	* Discuss/decide if the package level asserted license should be optional or mandatory
		+	* Rename "asserted license" to "asserted licensing"
		+	* Future topic- should there be additional optional fields for non-standard licenses?
		+	* Add a comment for the reviewer in the review section
		+	* Reconcile the tag names with the SPDX overview
		+	* consider a more consistent naming convention
		+
		+	== Minute details ==
		+
		+	Review spdx overview slides sent by Kate - purpose to align on the current status of the spec:
		+
		+	* Section Headers in the spec - Reviewer information has been moved to a separate section at the end
		+	* License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names. Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal. Note that embedded is somewhat ambiguous - used for "embedded in the package" as opposed to "embedded in the SPDX file"
		+	* Identification section - Version of SPDX - does it make sense in the RDF spec? Topic for future discussion.
		+	* Identification section - Method of xor for all file sha's to generate overall checksum - need to publish and review the specific algorithm. The package file sha is optional in case the spdx file is embedded
		+
		+	* Source information - change description to reflect additional information on the source rather than anomalies (e.g. the download URL is no longer available)
		+	* Package level - agree to add asserted license. Asserted may include logic (and/or disjunctive/etc)
		+	** Seen licenses would just be a list
		+	** Not clear if asserted license at the package level should be mandatory or optional - future discussion
		+	* Copyright - just a string for release 1 of SPDX
		+	* Should there be additional optional tags in the non-standard license? Topic for a future proposal.
		+	* File - Asserted License → Asserted Licensing (takes care of possibility of multiple licenses)
		+	* File - Seen license - can be multiple licenses
		+	* Cardinality - does it make sense to have a mandatory field that may contain 0 items - yes since it confirms that "none were found"
		+	* Reviews - should there be a comment for the reviewer? Yes - add this as an optional field.
		+
		+	Todo: reconcile the tag names with the spdx overview
		+
		+	Need a better naming convention - add to topic for next week's call - suggestion to invite the individual providing the feedback to the call.
		+
		+	[[Category:Technical\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

Technical Team/Minutes/2011-01-25 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 22:18, 25 January 2011