issue#10 #20
issue#10 #20
Conversation
get latest updates from main repo
|
close pull request |
goneall
left a comment
goneall
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing identifier -> externalDocumentId would make this compatible with SPDX
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "class": "ExternalDocumentRef", | ||
| "name": "namespace", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
2 participants
#10 (comment)