MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-11T14:56:24Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 18:25, 10 March 2013

2013-03-10T18:25:21Z

New page

Minutes 2/26/2013Attendees:<ul><li>Gary O’Neall</li><li>Marshall Clow</li><li>Bill Schineller</li><li>Kate Stewart</li><li>Michael Herzog</li><li>Jack manbeck</li></ul>Agenda:<ul><li>Collab Summit Planning</li><li>Model Discussion</li><li>Updates</li></ul>Collab Summit Planning<ul><li>Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon</li><li>Tuesday Morning tech team face to face.  Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.</li></ul>Modeling:<ul><li>Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model</li><li>Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. <a href="http://www.spdx.org/wiki/2012-feb-1-merged-model-proposal">http://www.spdx.org/wiki/2012-feb-1-merged-model-proposal</a>:<ul><li>Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship,  fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range</li><li>Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range</li><li>Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.<ul><li>also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>Do we need to include the byte range?<ul><li>Byte range adds complexity</li><li>Do we need this level?</li><li>Verification use cases may need this?</li></ul></li><li>Thought to use annotations for the byte range</li><li>Conclusions:<ul><li>We should capture the byte range within a file</li><li>The choice of where we model the snippet is open</li><li>Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list</li><li>Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations?  Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X.  My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).<ul><li>Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)</li><li>At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>Updates:<ul><li>Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call</li></ul>

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 11 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p>Minutes 2/26/2013</p><p>~~Attendees~~:</p><ul><li>~~Gary O’Neall~~</li><li>~~Marshall Clow~~</li><li>~~Bill Schineller~~</li><li>~~Kate Stewart~~</li><li>~~Michael Herzog~~</li><li>~~Jack manbeck~~</li></ul><p>~~Agenda~~:</p><ul><li>~~Collab Summit Planning~~</li><li>~~Model Discussion~~</li><li>~~Updates~~</li></ul><p>~~Collab Summit Planning~~</p><ul><li>~~Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon~~</li><li>~~Tuesday Morning tech team face to face.~~ ~~ Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.~~</li></ul><p>~~Modeling~~:</p><ul><li>~~Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model~~</li><li>~~Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. ~~<a href="http:~~/~~/www.spdx.org/wiki~~/2012-~~feb~~-~~1-merged-model-proposal">http:~~/~~/www.spdx.org/wiki/2012-feb-1-merged-model-proposal</a>:<ul><li>~~Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship, ~~ ~~fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range~~</li><li>~~Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range~~</li><li>~~Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.~~<ul><li>~~also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)~~</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>~~Do we need to include the byte range?~~<ul><li>~~Byte range adds complexity~~</li><li>~~Do we need this level?~~</li><li>~~Verification use cases may need this?~~</li></ul></li><li>~~Thought to use annotations for the byte range~~</li><li>~~Conclusions:~~<ul><li>~~We should capture the byte range within a file~~</li><li>~~The choice of where we model the snippet is open~~</li><li>~~Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list~~</li><li>~~Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations? ~~ ~~Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X. ~~ ~~My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).~~<ul><li>~~Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)~~</li><li>~~At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?~~</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p>~~Updates~~:</p><ul><li>~~Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call~~</li></ul>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Gary O’Neall
		+	* Marshall Clow
		+	* Bill Schineller
		+	* Kate Stewart
		+	* Michael Herzog
		+	* Jack manbeck
		+
		+	== Agenda ==
		+
		+	* Collab Summit Planning
		+	* Model Discussion
		+	* Updates
		+
		+	== Collab Summit Planning ==
		+
		+	* Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon
		+	* Tuesday Morning tech team face to face. Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.
		+
		+	== Modeling ==
		+
		+	* Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model
		+	* Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. [[Technical_Team/Proposals/2012-02-01/Merged_Model_Proposal]]
		+	** Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship, fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range
		+	** Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range
		+	** Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.
		+	*** also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)
		+	* Do we need to include the byte range?
		+	** Byte range adds complexity
		+	** Do we need this level?
		+	** Verification use cases may need this?
		+	* Thought to use annotations for the byte range
		+	* Conclusions:
		+	** We should capture the byte range within a file
		+	** The choice of where we model the snippet is open
		+	** Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list
		+	** Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations? Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X. My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).
		+	*** Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)
		+	*** At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?
		+
		+	== Updates ==
		+
		+	* Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call
		+
		+	[[Category:Technical\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]

Technical Team/Minutes/2013-02-26 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 18:25, 10 March 2013