THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2011-01-25"
From SPDX Wiki
< Technical Team | Minutes
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == 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]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 6 March 2013
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.
