Technical Team/Minutes/2011-08-09

Attendees

887 - Do we have structured strings for creator, reviewer, …? Agreed that in the future, the RDF structure will probably be different than a structured string but we do not have time to create, review and implement a proposal. Agreed to have a structured string for this release – Peter will propose a more formal syntax. Note: SPDX tools currently doea a simple partial validation of strings starting with “PERSON:”, “ORGANIZATION:”, etc.
728 - Move examples to spdx.org – leave in spdx.org/spec/examples – Kirsten will create subcatory for “work in progress”, once reviewed we can label the examples as conforming to the spec. Can close bug.
Xxx – What license is the RDF terms released under, need to confirm with legal. Peter will follow-up with legal. Proposal to make the rdf spec
874 – packageOriginator and packageSuppler → originator, supplier – spec is being updated. Tools will be updated and re-uploaded this morning to make consistent.
Suggest that the class order in the rdf terms page match the order from the spec
656 – closed after review of license text and license index
883 – agree we don’t need ascending order for license ID’s – assigned bug to Kate and will e fixed in next rev of the spec
886 – broken link, assigned to Kate, will be fixed in next release
888 – rdf example fix - assigned to Kate, will be fixed in next release

Reviewed updates (a few changes were noted “spdx.com” → “spdx.org”)
Request to make sections 5 and 6 consistent in the statement for what is required and optional – Steve to send an email describing request to the group
Decided to change the status of the rdf terms from “testing” to “stable”