Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Field Names"

Revision as of 14:58, 29 March 2011

Field names have drifted,  this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.

3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains

-  yes, want this for ease converting between formats.

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.

- changed to just copyright.

4.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.

- added in though for other formats

5.1 This is the uri/node id of the resource so it is not necessary to have a separate property for it in rdf.

- added in though for other formats

5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.

- based on discussion in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear.

6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?

- changed this to reviewed

6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.

- went with comments

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

spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax