THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx

Difference between revisions of "Technical Team/Minutes/2011-06-07"

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Convert to MediaWiki syntax)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Minutes 6/7/2011</span></p>
+
== Attendees ==
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
+
 
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Attendees:</span></p>
+
* Bill Schineller
<ul>
+
* Kate Stewart
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Bill Schineller</span></li>
+
* Nicholas Loke
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Kate Stewart</span></li>
+
* Steve Crawford
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Nicholas Loke</span></li>
+
* Peter Williams
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Steve Crawford</span></li>
+
* Gary O’Neall
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Peter Williams</span></li>
+
 
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Gary O’Neall</span></li></ul>
+
== Agenda ==
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
+
 
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Agenda:</span></p>
+
* Review current spec published 6/6/2011
<ul>
+
 
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Review current spec published 6/6/2011</span></li></ul>
+
== Review ==
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
+
 
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Review</span></p>
+
* Language updated from the legal team
<ul>
+
* Request review from Kirsten for the legal language
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Language updated from the legal team</span></li>
+
* Still some review comments in the Legal team, so there may be some additional changes
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Request review from Kirsten for the legal language</span></li>
+
* Request for technical team to review and send Kate a document version under change revision mode to highlight any review comments or changes
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Still some review comments in the Legal team, so there may be some additional changes</span></li>
+
* Request for a spreadsheet example including the URI for artifactOf – Gary
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Request for technical team to review and send Kate a document version under change revision mode to highlight any review comments or changes</span></li>
+
* Appendix II. RDF Data Model Implementation – needs a review to make sure it is in sync with the latest spec (especially naming)
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Request for a spreadsheet example including the URI for artifactOf – Gary</span></li>
+
* hasFile property on the document – hasFile is a property of package. Having a property at the document level is OK, but we would like to add such a property in the future. Concern about the name “hasFile” at the document level. Agreed to “referencesFile”.
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Appendix II. RDF Data Model Implementation – needs a review to make sure it is in sync with the latest spec (especially naming)</span></li>
+
* Discussion on having a property from the file to the document – agreed to postpone any changes until there is a use case which benefits from this relationship
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">hasFile property on the document – hasFile is a property of package. Having a property at the document level is OK, but we would like to add such a property in the future. Concern about the name “hasFile” at the document level. Agreed to “referencesFile”.</span></li>
+
* artifactOf – need for more information to describe how it is used. Produce some examples.
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Discussion on having a property from the file to the document – agreed to postpone any changes until there is a use case which benefits from this relationship</span></li>
+
* Need to produce instructions on how to use the spec.
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">artifactOf – need for more information to describe how it is used. Produce some examples.</span></li>
+
* PackageVerificationCode excluded file, need to review/update the cardinality – 0 or more – some question/concern on the language used to describe the cardinality (0 or more mandatory or optional)
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Need to produce instructions on how to use the spec.</span></li>
+
* PackageVerificationCode excluded file – review syntax in the main document
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">PackageVerificationCode excluded file, need to review/update the cardinality – 0 or more – some question/concern on the language used to describe the cardinality (0 or more mandatory or optional)</span></li>
+
* Conjunctinve/Disjunctive licenses – should the cardinality be 2 or more – tradeoff of additional effort for tooling to interpret manage degenerative case. Agree to 2 or more as the cardinality.
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">PackageVerificationCode excluded file – review syntax in the main document</span></li>
+
* SimpleLicenseInfo discussion – Should we have SimpleLicenseInfo a straight subclass of AnyLicenseInfo? Would be more constraining, but would also match the conceptual model – proposed for next week’s agenda
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Conjunctinve/Disjunctive licenses – should the cardinality be 2 or more – tradeoff of additional effort for tooling to interpret manage degenerative case. Agree to 2 or more as the cardinality.</span></li>
+
* Proposal for embedded octect stream – proposed for next week’s agenda
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">SimpleLicenseInfo discussion – Should we have SimpleLicenseInfo a straight subclass of AnyLicenseInfo? Would be more constraining, but would also match the conceptual model – proposed for next week’s agenda </span></span></li>
+
 
<li><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Proposal for embedded octect stream – proposed for next week’s agenda </span></li></ul>
+
[[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
 +
[[Category:Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 13:12, 6 March 2013

Attendees

  • Bill Schineller
  • Kate Stewart
  • Nicholas Loke
  • Steve Crawford
  • Peter Williams
  • Gary O’Neall

Agenda

  • Review current spec published 6/6/2011

Review

  • Language updated from the legal team
  • Request review from Kirsten for the legal language
  • Still some review comments in the Legal team, so there may be some additional changes
  • Request for technical team to review and send Kate a document version under change revision mode to highlight any review comments or changes
  • Request for a spreadsheet example including the URI for artifactOf – Gary
  • Appendix II. RDF Data Model Implementation – needs a review to make sure it is in sync with the latest spec (especially naming)
  • hasFile property on the document – hasFile is a property of package. Having a property at the document level is OK, but we would like to add such a property in the future. Concern about the name “hasFile” at the document level. Agreed to “referencesFile”.
  • Discussion on having a property from the file to the document – agreed to postpone any changes until there is a use case which benefits from this relationship
  • artifactOf – need for more information to describe how it is used. Produce some examples.
  • Need to produce instructions on how to use the spec.
  • PackageVerificationCode excluded file, need to review/update the cardinality – 0 or more – some question/concern on the language used to describe the cardinality (0 or more mandatory or optional)
  • PackageVerificationCode excluded file – review syntax in the main document
  • Conjunctinve/Disjunctive licenses – should the cardinality be 2 or more – tradeoff of additional effort for tooling to interpret manage degenerative case. Agree to 2 or more as the cardinality.
  • SimpleLicenseInfo discussion – Should we have SimpleLicenseInfo a straight subclass of AnyLicenseInfo? Would be more constraining, but would also match the conceptual model – proposed for next week’s agenda
  • Proposal for embedded octect stream – proposed for next week’s agenda