Below is a list of issues identified while documenting the SPDX 2.0 RDF terms. I would like to go over and resolve these at LinuxCon with the possible exception of the last item (RDF restrictions for both data and object properties).
Please take a look at the remaining items and reply to the distribution list if you have any ideas/opinions prior to next Wednesday (August 20), especially if you are not planning on attending. The RDF documentation can be found at http://spdx.org/rdf/ontology/spdx-2-0-rev-5/ Thanks in advance, Gary The following list if issues are inconsistencies identified in the following definitions from the minutes from Collab Summit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTMJsDZjDajacMK1P5qyP4Jib3bwhsYKxeuG4U5z 1DE/edit# and the relationship/usage types spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13MuhIhmdSx5e9B7OCuz_CUoYRtAu-WU08SbI Mlym5Xc/edit#gid=585252373 . I had to flesh out some of the Annotation class to document it: o date defined as a dateTime with the description "A date-time stamp". I also made created (used in CreationInfo) a subproperty of date. o annontationType - I only included 2 annotations - annotationType_Review and annotationType_Other. We probably should discuss what other annotations we should add. o I don't think Review as a subclass of Annotation will be compatible with 1.2 due to the required properties of Annotation. I moved Review to no longer be a subclass and marked it as depreciated. o agent - We should discuss mapping foaf:Agent to tag/value. For now, I just added an empty class to the model and didn't fill in the details from the foaf standard . The property licenseId was used for both standard License and ExtracedLicenseText - yet the comment for the licenseId property is specific to non-standard licenses. I updated the text to: "A human readable short form license identifier for a license. The license ID is either on the standard license or of the form "LicenseRef-"[idString] where [idString] is a unique string containing letters, numbers, ".", "-" or "+"." . Changed Relationship definition to refer to SpdxElements rather than SpdxItems . Renamed verificationCode in relationship to relatedDocumentChecksum and made it optional since there will be relationships within the same SPDX document and a checksum will not be possible. . Renamed SpdxStandardLicense to ListLicense based on the email thread on 7/14/2014. . I ran into an issue in expressing restrictions for properties which can contain a string or NONE or NOASSERTION (e.g. copyrightText). NONE and NOASSERTION are individuals which, at least in the Protege tool, requires an Object Property which is distinct from a Data Property. I was able to get it to work in Protege by having a Data Property and an Object Property with the same URI. I don't think, however, this is valid OWL. Gary ------------------------------------------------- Gary O'Neall Principal Consultant Source Auditor Inc. Mobile: 408.805.0586 Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
