Consider it added to the list. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > -- Kate Stewart Sr. Director of Strategic Programs, The Linux Foundation Mobile: +1.512.657.3669 Email / Google Talk: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
