We did talk about this a bit at Collab, and the general feeling was there likely are not too many of these documents in the wild. It also will only be a problem for the RDF format.
If anyone on the tech distribution list knows of any usage of the datafile relationship, let us know. If we can't find any actual usage - I would propose we make the fix soon to prevent future incompatibilities. Gary From: Yev Bronshteyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 11:24 AM To: Gary O'Neall; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Our implementation only produces SPDX - we don’t consume it. Fortunately, we don’t currently generate any of the two affected relationships, so the change doesn’t affect us in particular. I don’t know how many documents are out there in the wild and of those, how many use these relationships. From: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:05 PM To: Yev Bronshteyn <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Hi Yev, You are correct in that any libraries written that look for the specific URI will need to code for both URI's. I can take care of this in the SPDX tools. If there are other implementations at Black Duck and/or other companies which are impacted, we should revisit how we want to address this. Changing the spec will create the same incompatibility on the tag/value side which will also be problematic. If fixing this inconsistency is impactful, we could consider just leaving them as inconsistent. Gary From: Yev Bronshteyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 10:53 AM To: Gary O'Neall; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Since the URI does not resolve to a machine readable RDF document, even if the logic written against the old document is handled with an inference engine that supports OWL, it won’t do much good – that’s my understanding. My experience with RDF is limited, so please correct me if I’m missing something. From: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM To: Yev Bronshteyn <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Hi Yev, Agree with the concern. We did discuss this at spec review at Linux Con. The general feeling was if we made the change soon, it wouldn't be too impactful. I do plan to retain the old enumeration in the RDF terms as a deprecated term meaning the "same as" the new term. In the SPDX libraries, I plan to handle the situation where the old term is used. Gary From: Yev Bronshteyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:39 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Gary O'Neall Subject: Re: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Importance: High Gary, This is a breaking change that will make all existing SPDX documents illegal. The doc you generated for the bakeoff uses the URIs from the current anthology, not the current spec. The same is true for every other doc generated with SPDX tools. If anything, it’s the spec needs to be changed. From: <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 1:43 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Bug 1349] New: Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Bug ID 1349 <https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1349> Summary Change RDF Ontology Relationship_datafile to Relationship_datafileOf Product SPDX Version 2.1 Hardware All OS All Status NEW Severity normal Priority P2 Component Spec Assignee [email protected] Reporter [email protected] Classification Unclassified To be consistent with the SPDX document Deprecate the original relationship type make equivalent to the new type _____ You are receiving this mail because: * You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
