Hi Kate,
Just getting back into reviewing the document. I would like to add one additional topic - the rdf:about= seem to be incorrect for the file and package examples. Would like to see of others agree and propose a solution. Gary From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kate Stewart Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Reminder: SPDX tech meeting in 1 hour. Where we are for the 2.1 release? - License list Appendix has been updated to 2.4, OSI approved licenses indicated in table now. - External Repository Identifiers Appendix has been updated to the format suggested by Bill. - Most of outstanding comments in the specification have been resolved. Agenda: - Review last open comments - resolve if possible. * 3.2 - SPDXDocumentURI - defined in RDF? * 3.7 - Package Download location - NONE, NOASSERTION - coding up in RDF. * 3.8 - Files Analyzed comments. * 7.1.1 Describes - Manditory vs. Recommended. Handling weird cases. - Determine readiness to mail out to wider SPDX community for final review window. Looking forward to talking to you in 1 hours's time. We'll be meeting in: Join the call: https://www.uberconference.com/spdxteam Optional dial in number: 857-216-2871 PIN: 38633 Thanks, Kate
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
