I believe the current SPDX tools will treat both RDF and Tag/Value in the same manner - the documents will be readable by the tools but it will fail a validation (missing required field). For the

I think making those fields optional would be advantageous. Would you mind filing a bug[1] so that we don't forget to look into the issue for the next version. As for your immediate issues of not

Dear all As you probably noticed Alcatel-Lucent is trying to implement the SPDX standard. We have an internal database on FOSS IP issues that has been created in 2002. and we are trying to implement

Hi Marc-Etienne, Thanks for catching these. The property name is rdfs:comment for Review. I went ahead and submitted bug 1046 to fix the spec. For 1.1, there is also a web page with the rdf terms

Sorry, the Subject of the message should read "Problem with Review Comments" -- Marc-Etienne Vargenau Alcatel-Lucent France, Route de Villejust, 91620 NOZAY, FRANCE +33 (0)1 30 77 28 33,

Hello, In the SPDX 1.0 and spdx-1.1-rc20120403.pdf I read: 7.3.6 RDF: property spdx:comment in class spdx:Review Example: <Review> <rdfs:comment> All of the licenses seen in the file, are matching

Hello, In the SPDX 1.0 and spdx-1.1-rc20120403.pdf I read: 4.9.4 Data Format: free form text that can span multiple lines. In tag format this is delimited by <text> .. </text>. 4.9.5 Tag:

Hello Kate, It's done. Bugs 1040 and 1041. Best regards, Marc-Etienne -- Marc-Etienne Vargenau Alcatel-Lucent France, Route de Villejust, 91620 NOZAY, FRANCE +33 (0)1 30 77 28 33,

Hello Marc-Etienne, Good catch. Looks like you've got two bugs there, one against the translation tool, and one against the spec. Please file the bugs from https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org,

Hello, I have questions regarding the syntax of comments in an SPDX file in tag format. From the examples, it seems that ## starts a comment. For example: ## Creation Information But I do not see

Arrgggh. Sorry for the volume. In my earlier note, I provided the wrong link for the Biz Team work looking to be reviewed. Use this one: http://spdx.org/wiki/spdx-vision-mission From: Michael Herzog

Please take the time to review Legal Team description and License List description as well as Mission/Vision work from Business Team. Attendance: 10 May 17 minutes approved Legal Team Report

Hello, I suggest the following improvements in the SPDX examples. They could be included in the final 1.1 spec. In 4.1.6 replace <name>glibc 2.11.1</name> with <name>glibc</name> In

All, I neglected to include the minutes from the last meeting in my reminder email. First order of business is to approve. http://www.spdx.org/wiki/20120517-general-meeting-minutes Phil

> Excuse the late notice. I am traveling. Normal time/ normal agenda today. > > Sent from my iPhone

Excuse the late notice. I am traveling. Normal time/ normal agenda today.

Thanks Marc - I corrected the tools page per your message below. In terms of case sensitive - I don't recall any discussion on this relative to the entire file. I know that some of the specific

Hello Gary, Thank you for your quick answer. Responses inline also. I had overlooked this page. In page http://spdx.org/tools I would replace "Rdf to XMLversion 0.9.6" by "Rdf to HTMLversion

Hi Marc-Etienne, Responses inline below Gary

Hello, I am trying to understand the SPDX 1.0 spec so that I can export our FOSS database in SPDX format. I have the following questions: The are two formats, one in text and one in XML/RDF. 1) Is