Technical Team/Minutes/2011-03-22

Attendees

Complete the resolution of the naming differences
Discuss ways to represent the RDF entities in the spec (e.g. artifactOf, DisjunctiveLicensingSet)

Started with 4.2 licenseID
We will color proposed changes in RDF column yellow for Peter’s review
Agreed on LicenseID as property last time – propose spdx:licenseID
Per file info → File Information
File name – spdx:filename
File checksum/sha1/identifies – Agree on the name being fileCheckSum.
To future proof the field, we agreed to make the name generic (not algorithm specific)
Create a checksum class with 2 properties, algorithm and value
We changed the Package field to be use the same checksum approach
For the RDF fields, should we have property names for everywehere we have class names defined in the spreadsheets? We decided to add a property name followed by “/” then the class name for these fields.
Discussed whether the file verification field should also use the same checksum approach. Decided to keep this as a single field.
ArtifactOf – To not loose information, we will add a URI property
Some discussion on the different scenarios with ArtifactOf DOAP documents (external DOAP documents and creating internal DOAP resource nodes within the SPDX document). Agreed to test out some of these scenarios during Beta.
Some discussion of the comments – agreed to use the rdfs:comment consistently.
Note: Some of the updates to the spreadsheet may not have been captured in the bullets above – see the Spreadsheet version 9 yellow for all updated names.