Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2017-06-27"

Latest revision as of 18:46, 11 July 2017

June 27, 2017

Attendees

• Gary O’Neall
• Thomas Steenberg
• Anna Buhman
• Krys Nuvadga
• Alexios Zavras
• Yev Bronshteyn
• Uday Korlimarla
• Kate Stewart
• Aleksandr Lisianoi
• Rohit Lodha
• Philippe Ombredanne

GSoC Updates

• Rohit – online tools
  • Verification complete
  • Conversion tools nearly complete
  • Would like to improve the Java tools to report line numbers for more validation errors
  • May complete the work before end of August and would like to contribute to the Java tools if complete early
• Alex
  • Transpiling to JavaScript
  • Working on the Boolean expressions to support license expressions
  • Would like to produce NPM package
• Krys
  • License scoring project
  • Able to get information from spec
  • Target working prototype by start of next week
  • Detailed information in the repo
  • Using the DJango framework
  • Philippe suggested getting the code working outside the framework first, then add a web framework
  • Philippe suggested having more SPDX examples
• Anna
  • Github SPDX integration – scans automatically
  • Working on pull request approach to put SPDX document back into Repository
    • Philippe suggested having a github user for the server to create the pull requests
    • Gary suggested making that user configurable
    • This could also help with private repositories where the user configured could have access – but we agreed that private repos would not be in scope for this week

Update on Spec Repository

• Thomas is working on OpenChain as well
• Travis CI is still failing – Thomas is working on the last bug
• Intent is to build all types of documents automatically (HTML, PDF, etc.)
• Problem has to do with permissions

Next SPDX Specification

• Discussed Yev’s proposal for more concise representation of relationships
  • Agreed to pursue approach
  • Yev will provide definitions (added to end of google docs)
• Discussed alternative package alias proposal from Thomas – Agreed this is useful
  • Discussed whether to just change the cardinality of name to be multiple
  • Agreed on the additional name approach rather than changing the cardinality
  • Discussed alternateName or packageAlternateName – tag/value would be packageAlternateName, RDF would be alternateName
  • Discussed if we still need to require packageName if alternateName is provided – agreed to require packageName for compatibility reasons
  • Does alternatative name apply to other SPDX element?
    • Could be useful for license names – follow-up with legal team
    • Snippet names – not useful
    • Document names – not useful
    • File names – could be useful, but a different semantic and would be treated differently