Looks good to me! I second the point on having proper namespaces - i.e. in
the cve example, it feels like it could easily be overloaded. It may also
provide some context to help in validating provenance at a later point.

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 9:49 AM David Kemp <[email protected]> wrote:

> @William, That sounds reasonable, but it doesn't solve the problem of
> "Actor".  If an Element is createdBy one Identity and Identity has
> Person/Organization/(tool?) subclasses, then there is no way to express
> that an Element was createdBy a person acting on behalf of an organization
> vs. the same person acting individually.  And defining Element as created
> by 1..* Identities is a huge mess, including how to authenticate each of
> them.
>
> I like "identifiedBy" identifier properties, but I think each identifier
> should be tagged as person/organization/(tool?) rather than subclassing the
> Identity/Actor Element.
>
>
> @Jeff, what problem does the defects group perceive as resulting from not
> explicitly labeling a difference between URLs and URIs?  The 2002
> "contemporary view" of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3305#section-2.2
> still seems applicable today:
>>
>> The term "URL" does not refer to a formal partition of URI space; rather,
>> URL is a useful but informal concept.
>
>
> URIs can refer to both "information resources" and "non-information
> resources" like namespaces (
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html#note-informationResource).
> Non-information resources can never be located, while URIs for information
> resources can be persistent identifiers, temporary locators, or both.
>
> One argument for not creating an artificial dichotomy is that any
> non-locator URI becomes a locator as soon as anyone deploys a resolver
> service, and that such resolvers are used in practice to locate namespaced
> information resources using SPARQL.
>
> So I would ask about a proposal to define separate property names: what
> problem does it solve?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:34 PM Jeff Schutt (jefschut) via lists.spdx.org
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hey William,
>>
>>
>>
>> Initial reactions:
>>
>>    - I like the simplicity this introduces wrt consolidating various
>>    types of identifiers in the model.
>>    - I don’t like that this continues to co-mingle identifiers and
>>    locators, and perpetuates some of the confusion caused by the way
>>    ExternalReferences are defined in v2.x.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two observations of previous SPDX decisions made:
>>
>>    1. The 3.0 model uses “ArtifactURI” rather than the subset of
>>    “ArtifactURL”
>>    2. In the Defects WG we accepted this identifier/locator co-mingling
>>    as part of the patch to v2.3 with the expectation that we would resolve it
>>    by ensuring identifiers and locators are separate entities in v3.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> How would you suggest accommodating this separation in the proposal?
>>
>>
>>
>> One option would be to have “identifiedBy” and “locatedBy” both be on
>> “Element”.
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   "SPDXID": "urn:spdx.dev:spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "name": "spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "locatedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "PURL", "locator": "pkg:..."}
>>
>>   ],
>>
>>   "identifiedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "cpe22", "identifier": "..."},
>>
>>     {"type": "SWHID", "identifier": "..."}
>>
>>   ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *<[email protected]> on behalf of "William Bartholomew
>> (CELA) via lists.spdx.org" <[email protected]>
>> *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> *Date: *Monday, May 9, 2022 at 8:00 PM
>> *To: *spdx-tech <[email protected]>
>> *Subject: *[spdx-tech] Simplifying Identities
>>
>>
>>
>> I experimented with something around identities and I'm really liking the
>> simplicity, so I wanted to run it by you to get your thoughts:
>>
>>    - We keep "Identity" element with subclasses of "Person" and
>>    "Organization" (I'm ignoring "Tool" for right now).
>>    - Introduce a new data type "Identifier" which could have subtypes
>>    like "EmailAddress" and "Login".
>>    - Add a property to "Element" called "identifiedBy" which is a list
>>    of zero or more "Identifier".
>>
>> This means we can have a Person that looks like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   "SPDXID": "urn:github.com:users:iamwillbar",
>>
>>   "type": "Person",
>>
>>   "name": "William Bartholomew",
>>
>>   "identifiedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "EmailAddress", "email": "[email protected]"},
>>
>>     {"type": "Account", "authority": "github.com", "username":
>> "iamwillbar"}
>>
>>   ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> This then got me thinking that "artifactUrl" on "Artifact" is just
>> another form of "Identifier", which means we could remove that property and
>> so a "Package" could look like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   "SPDXID": "urn:spdx.dev:spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "name": "spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "identifiedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "PURL", "locator": "pkg:..."}
>>
>>   ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> What does that remind you of? "ExternalReferences", so we can then remove
>> those and merge that concept into identifiers:
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   "SPDXID": "urn:spdx.dev:spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "name": "spdx-tools-3.0.0",
>>
>>   "identifiedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "PURL", "locator": "pkg:..."},
>>
>>     {"type": "cpe22", "locator": "..."},
>>
>>     {"type": "SWHID", "locator": "..."}
>>
>>   ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> And because "identifiedBy" is on "Element" any new types we add in the
>> future can also have identifiers attached to them:
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   "SPDXID": "urn:cve:12345",
>>
>>   "name": "tkvideo has a memory issue in playing videos",
>>
>>   "identifiedBy": [
>>
>>     {"type": "CVE", "locator": "CVE-2022-24902"}
>>
>>   ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>>
>> 
>
>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#4498): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4498
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/91005596/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to