Thanks Gary,
I'll work through them tomorrow, and apply them with some other changes I got.
re: 1166 - ok. Thanks for highlighting.
Kate
________________________________
From: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:40 PM
Subject: Review of spec, RDF terms, and tools output for SPDX version 1.2
Hi Kate,
I just finished a somewhat thorough comparison of the RDF terms, the spec
document, and the tools output.
I only found a couple of things outlined below.
The changes to the RDF terms are small enough I would suggest that you just
edit the text in the appendix rather than me regenerating that section (less
risk of creating new errors).
I’ll update the HTML page for the RDF terms.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary
To be fixed in the document:
The tag value for section 6.12.5 is incorrect – should be FileNotice (currently
FileComment)
To be fixed in the RDF terms AND the RDF terms appendix in the document:
Bug 1166 -Inconsistency on licenseRef definition between RDF terms and
specification document
I propose to fix this in the RDF terms, but I wanted to give the inconsistency
some visibility as a bug to make sure there is no disagreement on this approach.
RDFSection property specVersion “the value for this versions … “ – change from
1.1 to 1.2
-------------------------------------------------
Gary O'Neall
Principal Consultant
Source Auditor Inc.
Mobile: 408.805.0586
Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
