Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2011-04-12"

Latest revision as of 13:03, 6 March 2013

Attendees

• Nicholas Loke
• Kirsten Newcomer
• Peter Williams
• Bill Schineller
• Kate Stewart

Agenda

• Plan for what remains
• Review spec – create a list of what’s missing
• Go through all remaining items

Review Spec

• Discussion on document format. Agreed to add RDF XML examples to the sections and move the tag/value example under the tag/value
• The RDF and tag/value information will be separated out into different appendices.
• Peter will produce a new set of RDF documentation. It will be included in the PDF document and the HTML will be posted to spdx.org/rdf/terms. The documentation will be based on an OWL. This will be provided by Sunday.
• Gary will generate examples for the RDF XML from the tools. This will be done within 2 weeks.
• Section 3 – concern about having structure to the strings, for the RDF. Data format for beta will be simple strings. The tag/value should have a structure. The RDF format for after beta TBD.
• Date Format – should we specify the date format? Agreed to leave the spec as is (was highly discussed a year ago and the current format was the resolution).
• Should creator comments and reviewer comments be rdfs:comment? TBD (Peter – can you include a proposal when you document the RDF)
• Discussion on the RDF specific subsections – will make consistent once we add the documentation from Peter
• SourceInfo 4.6.6 should be changed to multi-line
• LicenseInfo fields – add the new syntax for license sets and mandatory 1
• Review of license terminology – will handle on the list (I’m not sure I completely captured this item)
• Section 5 Identifier Assigned → Identifier
• Section 5.2 is currently 4.1 – renumber/format issue
• Review free form text fields (e.g. 5.1.13) for consistency for <text> … </text>. Would prefer the subsection for data format to be just free form text and the tag example to include the <text> … </text>
• Possibly add a sentence or two in section 6, add the description for what happens if there is no archive file name for the package (use the package name).
• 6.3.5 lowercase c in checksum
• ArtifactOf structure does not match well to the RDF format – Peter to propose a solution
• Reviewer – name string format – same issue with parsing strings in the RDF
• Inconsistent use of unspecified and unknown licenses – proposal to treat these as standard licenses and include them in Appendix I (and on the spdx.org/licenses website).
• Diagram – Analyzed file – is it a property of SPDX Doc or a just a property of the package? Agreed to add a property at the SPDXDoc level for all file and OtherLicensing info. This will allow for an easy extraction of all file information within an SPDX doc and easy extraction of all OtherLicensing info within a doc.

Plan: Peter will provide the RDF information by Thursday. We will review on Friday. This will allow implementation to begin over the weekend.