On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM,  <kate.stewart@...> wrote:

  Can I suggest LicenseSeen  rather than LicenseInformation,  as

the name for that field?   Information could get us back into those

ambiguous name discussions for someone seeing this for the first

time - using Seen might make it a bit more explicit that this is what

was seen in the file for those not doing a detailed reading of the

spec.  ;)

I don't love "LicenseSeen" but i agree that "LicenseInformation" a bit
too ambiguous.

  In the case when there is a fragement or some non-standardized

license,  the references in the non-standard-license should be

made with the same syntax, specifically "LICENSE"-N,

We should either stick to one format or not specific the format of
these ids at all.  I lean toward just saying licenses have an id
string and leaving it to the implementations to decide what those ids
look like.  It is likely that specifying the shape of license ids will
make it more difficult to implement rdf/xml (or any other rdf format)
file generators.

Peter
openlogic.com
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://fossbazaar.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx