Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Field Names"

Latest revision as of 12:56, 6 March 2013

Added bug id's to version #14 for all P1 bugs, so now version 15 is current.

Version 14 is updated to be current with the draft spec as of the start of the face to face meeting.

Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are:

?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?

? web page for standard licenses

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<p><strong>Field names have drifted,&nbsp; this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.</strong></p>
+'''Added bug id's to version #14 for all P1 bugs, so now version 15 is current.'''
-<p>3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains</p>
+'''Version 14 is updated to be current with the draft spec as of the start of the face to face meeting.'''
-<p>3.10 We might want reserve "copyrightDeclared" for the future where we have a more robust copyright model. We could change this to "copyrightStatement" which implies that is it is just some text.</p>
+'''Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are:'''
-<p>4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is no necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p>
+?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?
-<p>5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is no necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.</p>
+? web page for standard licenses
-<p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p>
+[[Category:Technical]]
-<p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</p>
-<p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p>
-<p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p>
-<p> spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax </p>