Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2015-11-03"

Latest revision as of 19:10, 3 November 2015

November 3, 2015

Proposal located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/13OknzNnY56UZhnj_VVPatirBrNze5cWXDx2fnKbBI_g/edit#heading=h.nmf14n
Resolved snippet ID format
Resolved external document reference
Discussion on Name
- In SPDXElement. Snippet is a subclass of SPDXElement which would imply name is a required property.
- Proposal, make name optional at the SPDXElement level and add it in to SPDX Snippet spec
- Alternative proposal to fix ontology class hierarchy to not require name in all cases
Bytes mandatory and lines are optional - all agreed
Bytes ranges - start at 1 or 0
- Based on programming languages, would prefer 0
- The RDF standard states 1
- Agree to start at 1 - resolved
- Add a comment to describe why we are starting at 1
Generally fixed up examples and cleaned up document
Snippet copyright - should it be included if it is the same as the file copyright?
- Generally, yes - to be consistent with treatment of copyrights in other parts of the spec
- Can be no-assertion
- Should be documented in a best practice - Yev agreed to draft a best practice
Remaining open items for Snippets:
- Name - proposal to make it optional, alternative includes not including a name in the snippet and changing the RDF model to be consistent.
- Review snippet comment.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 * Resolved external document reference
 * Discussion on Name
-** In SPDXElement, so the
+** In SPDXElement.  Snippet is a subclass of SPDXElement which would imply name is a required property.
 ** Proposal, make name optional at the SPDXElement level and add it in to SPDX Snippet spec
 ** Alternative proposal to fix ontology class hierarchy to not require name in all cases