Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 27, 2022. It is now read-only.

Conversation

CASTResearchLabs
Copy link
Collaborator

@CASTResearchLabs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

close pull request

Copy link
Collaborator

@goneall goneall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Two requested changes and one reminder to add an issue for a change to SPDX in an effort to keep the two standards compatible.

},
{
"class": "ExternalDocumentRef",
"name": "identifier",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changing identifier -> externalDocumentId would make this compatible with SPDX

},
{
"class": "ExternalDocumentRef",
"name": "namespace",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a note that this term is incompatible with SPDX which is spdxDocument. If this proposal is accepted, we should add an issue to SPDX 3.0 to change spdxDocument -> namespace.

"reverseName": "document"
},
{
"class": "AbstractArtifact",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

propose adding one more field checksum with a type 3T-...Checksum and a multiplicity of 0..1. 2 reasons to add - checksums are much easier to generate than signatures and it would be compatible with SPDX.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants