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
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.