Hi Rishabh,
I agree – the only reason for extractedLicenseInfo was to follow a pattern where we distinguished the property names for different subclasses for tag/value parsing. From a model perspective, licenseText probably makes more sense and as Steve pointed out on the call, the current SPDX documents don’t include the details for the Listed Licenses – so we could get away with renaming the property in 3.0. Hope you can join us on next week’s call where we’ll dive a bit deeper into the model. Gary From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rishabh Bhatnagar Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 11:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [spdx-tech] Confusion regarding extractedText field In today's call, Gary sir mentioned that there is a possibility that OtherLicenses could have both licenseText and extractedText fields as OtherLicense derives properties from a base class. Referring SPDX-UML-2.2.1 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/development/v2.2.1/model/SPDX-UML-Class-Diagram.jpg> , OtherLicense (ExtractedLicenseInfo) inherits from SimpleLicensingInfo which in-turn inherits from AnyLicenseInfo. Any of the parents of the OtherLicense doesn't have the "licenseText" property. Renaming extractedText to licenseText shouldn't affect the semantics of the SPDX model. Correct me if I am wrong. Rishabh Bhatnagar -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3921): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/3921 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/77202477/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
