THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx

Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2013-02-26"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<p>Minutes 2/26/2013</p><p>Attendees:</p><ul><li>Gary O’Neall</li><li>Marshall Clow</li><li>Bill Schineller</li><li>Kate Stewart</li><li>Michael Herzog</li><li>Jack manbeck</li></ul><p>Agenda:</p><ul><li>Collab Summit Planning</li><li>Model Discussion</li><li>Updates</li></ul><p>Collab Summit Planning</p><ul><li>Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon</li><li>Tuesday Morning tech team face to face.&nbsp; Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.</li></ul><p>Modeling:</p><ul><li>Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model</li><li>Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. <a href="http://www.spdx.org/wiki/2012-feb-1-merged-model-proposal">http://www.spdx.org/wiki/2012-feb-1-merged-model-proposal</a>:<ul><li>Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship, &nbsp;fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range</li><li>Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range</li><li>Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.<ul><li>also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>Do we need to include the byte range?<ul><li>Byte range adds complexity</li><li>Do we need this level?</li><li>Verification use cases may need this?</li></ul></li><li>Thought to use annotations for the byte range</li><li>Conclusions:<ul><li>We should capture the byte range within a file</li><li>The choice of where we model the snippet is open</li><li>Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list</li><li>Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations? &nbsp;Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X. &nbsp;My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).<ul><li>Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)</li><li>At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p>Updates:</p><ul><li>Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call</li></ul>
+
== Attendees ==
 +
 
 +
* Gary O’Neall
 +
* Marshall Clow
 +
* Bill Schineller
 +
* Kate Stewart
 +
* Michael Herzog
 +
* Jack manbeck
 +
 
 +
== Agenda ==
 +
 
 +
* Collab Summit Planning
 +
* Model Discussion
 +
* Updates
 +
 
 +
== Collab Summit Planning ==
 +
 
 +
* Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon
 +
* Tuesday Morning tech team face to face. Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.
 +
 
 +
== Modeling ==
 +
 
 +
* Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model
 +
* Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. [[Technical_Team/Proposals/2012-02-01/Merged_Model_Proposal]]
 +
** Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship, fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range
 +
** Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range
 +
** Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.
 +
*** also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)
 +
* Do we need to include the byte range?
 +
** Byte range adds complexity
 +
** Do we need this level?
 +
** Verification use cases may need this?
 +
* Thought to use annotations for the byte range
 +
* Conclusions:
 +
** We should capture the byte range within a file
 +
** The choice of where we model the snippet is open
 +
** Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list
 +
** Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations? Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X. My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).
 +
*** Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)
 +
*** At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?
 +
 
 +
== Updates ==
 +
 
 +
* Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
 +
[[Category:Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 14:56, 11 March 2013

Attendees

  • Gary O’Neall
  • Marshall Clow
  • Bill Schineller
  • Kate Stewart
  • Michael Herzog
  • Jack manbeck

Agenda

  • Collab Summit Planning
  • Model Discussion
  • Updates

Collab Summit Planning

  • Wednesday tools discussion and hackathon
  • Tuesday Morning tech team face to face. Modeling discussion will be one of the topics.

Modeling

  • Gary will update the model based on last week’s discussion and post a new graphic and the input data for the model
  • Snippets discussion on modeling options w.r.t. Technical_Team/Proposals/2012-02-01/Merged_Model_Proposal
    • Proposal to direct subclass SpdxFile inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship, fileName, fileType ; extended to include a byte range
    • Alternative proposal to extend the existing SpdxFile to include a file range
    • Alternative proposal to have a snippet be a direct subclass of SPDXElement (inherits licenseData, annotation, generic sPDXElementRelationship) and have an association to a file.
      • also have a special relationship(s) between Snippet-Snippet, Snippet-File (a relationship to the file it is contained in, in this package, and perhaps some external file (different byte range?) described in another SPDXDoc (from another package)
  • Do we need to include the byte range?
    • Byte range adds complexity
    • Do we need this level?
    • Verification use cases may need this?
  • Thought to use annotations for the byte range
  • Conclusions:
    • We should capture the byte range within a file
    • The choice of where we model the snippet is open
    • Bill will send out an email to solicit input from the mailing list
    • Annotation concept: should SPDX model have some 'standard' Annotations? Need to flesh out. Recall a suggested application of Annotation was to indicate a Change/Edit of data in a referenced SPDXDoc. (e.g. in the referenced SPDXDoc is says SPDXElement has licenseData X. My Annotation amends that to say it has licenseData Y).
      • Another Annotation application: adding non-standard properties to an SPDXElement (known/understood only by parties in the know, but non-breaking)
      • At all applicable to indicating the byte range of a contains Relationship?

Updates

  • Kate traveling next week in Asia and will not be able to join the call
Retrieved from "https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Technical_Team/Minutes/2013-02-26&oldid=2317"