View source for Technical Team/Minutes/2011-01-25

== Attendees ==

* Bill Schineller
* Gary O'Neall
* Peter Williams
* Kate Stewart

== Summary of follow-up items from the call ==

* License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names. Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal.
* Document and review the algorithm for creating the xor'd sha1's from the file list
* Change the description in the source information field in the package section
* Discuss/decide if the package level asserted license should be optional or mandatory
* Rename "asserted license" to "asserted licensing"
* Future topic- should there be additional optional fields for non-standard licenses?
* Add a comment for the reviewer in the review section
* Reconcile the tag names with the SPDX overview
* consider a more consistent naming convention

== Minute details ==

Review spdx overview slides sent by Kate - purpose to align on the current status of the spec:

* Section Headers in the spec - Reviewer information has been moved to a separate section at the end
* License section - consider renaming non-standard licenses to embedded licenses - has implications on the short form names. Todo: Kate to follow-up on the proposal. Note that embedded is somewhat ambiguous - used for "embedded in the package" as opposed to "embedded in the SPDX file"
* Identification section - Version of SPDX - does it make sense in the RDF spec? Topic for future discussion.
* Identification section - Method of xor for all file sha's to generate overall checksum - need to publish and review the specific algorithm.  The package file sha is optional in case the spdx file is embedded

* Source information - change description to reflect additional information on the source rather than anomalies (e.g. the download URL is no longer available)
* Package level - agree to add asserted license. Asserted may include logic (and/or disjunctive/etc)
** Seen licenses would just be a list
** Not clear if asserted license at the package level should be mandatory or optional - future discussion
* Copyright - just a string for release 1 of SPDX
* Should there be additional optional tags in the non-standard license? Topic for a future proposal.
* File - Asserted License → Asserted Licensing (takes care of possibility of multiple licenses)
* File - Seen license - can be multiple licenses
* Cardinality - does it make sense to have a mandatory field that may contain 0 items - yes since it confirms that "none were found"
* Reviews - should there be a comment for the reviewer? Yes - add this as an optional field.

Todo: reconcile the tag names with the spdx overview

Need a better naming convention - add to topic for next week's call - suggestion to invite the individual providing the feedback to the call.

[[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
[[Category:Minutes]]