Technical Team/Minutes/2011-08-09

From SPDX Wiki
< Technical Team‎ | Minutes
Revision as of 13:17, 6 March 2013 by MartinMichlmayr (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

  • Bill Schineller
  • Kirsten Newcomer
  • Branden Robinson
  • Peter Williams
  • Gary O’Neall
  • Kate Stewart
  • Nicholaas Loke
  • Jack Manbeck
  • Marshal

Agenda

  • Open bug list review
  • Spec walkthrough/check for ambiguities

Review open bug list

  • 887 - Do we have structured strings for creator, reviewer, …? Agreed that in the future, the RDF structure will probably be different than a structured string but we do not have time to create, review and implement a proposal. Agreed to have a structured string for this release – Peter will propose a more formal syntax. Note: SPDX tools currently doea a simple partial validation of strings starting with “PERSON:”, “ORGANIZATION:”, etc.
  • 728 - Move examples to spdx.org – leave in spdx.org/spec/examples – Kirsten will create subcatory for “work in progress”, once reviewed we can label the examples as conforming to the spec. Can close bug.
  • Xxx – What license is the RDF terms released under, need to confirm with legal. Peter will follow-up with legal. Proposal to make the rdf spec
  • 874 – packageOriginator and packageSuppler → originator, supplier – spec is being updated. Tools will be updated and re-uploaded this morning to make consistent.
  • Suggest that the class order in the rdf terms page match the order from the spec
  • 656 – closed after review of license text and license index
  • 883 – agree we don’t need ascending order for license ID’s – assigned bug to Kate and will e fixed in next rev of the spec
  • 886 – broken link, assigned to Kate, will be fixed in next release
  • 888 – rdf example fix - assigned to Kate, will be fixed in next release

Walkthrough of spec changes

  • Reviewed updates (a few changes were noted “spdx.com” → “spdx.org”)
  • Request to make sections 5 and 6 consistent in the statement for what is required and optional – Steve to send an email describing request to the group
  • Decided to change the status of the rdf terms from “testing” to “stable”

Other status

  • RDF terms will be updated by this afternoon (Peter)
  • Gary will review the doc, rdf terms, and tool property values for consistency