|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <p><strong> Field names have drifted, this is to capture comments and harmonize between the formats.</strong></p><p> 3.9 Do we need this? All the files in the package should have relationships to licensing information they contains </p><p>- yes, want this for ease converting between formats. </p><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> <p>- changed to just copyright.</p><p>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.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>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.</p><p>- added in though for other formats</p><p>5.8 In rdf only one property is required to store the artifact of information.</p><p>- based on discussion in meeting, have added in URI as explicit link, as well as other agreed to, so clear. </ p> <p>6.1 Should this field be called "analysisAcceptedBy" to be clear about the semantics of this field?</ p> <p>- changed this to reviewed</p><p>6.3 Maybe "notes" rather than "comment" makes more sense for this field.</p><p>- went with comments</p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p> spdx:version - should match earlier references and syntax </p> | + | <p><strong> Current version is #14, and draft spec should be reflecting them.</strong></p><p> </p><p>< strong> Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are: < br /></ strong></p><p>?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?</p><p> ? web page for standard licenses</p> |
Revision as of 18:47, 7 April 2011
Current version is #14, and draft spec should be reflecting them.
Areas of spreadsheet still under discussion are:
?.? spds:Tool (class) - when is this proposed to be used?
? web page for standard licenses
