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 what was seen during manual
inspection. There are some terms that can influence the concluded license, and
some alternatives may be possible, but the conluded license is one of the options.
</rdfs:comment>
</Review>

What is correct: "spdx:comment" or "<rdfs:comment>"?

Best regards,

Marc-Etienne

--
Marc-Etienne Vargenau
Alcatel-Lucent France, Route de Villejust, 91620 NOZAY, FRANCE
+33 (0)1 30 77 28 33, Marc-Etienne.Vargenau@...

Le 11/06/2012 15:16, VARGENAU, MARC-ETIENNE (MARC-ETIENNE) a écrit :

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 what was seen during
manual
inspection. There are some terms that can influence the concluded
license, and
some alternatives may be possible, but the conluded license is one of
the options.
</rdfs:comment>
</Review>

What is correct: "spdx:comment" or "<rdfs:comment>"?

Best regards,

Marc-Etienne

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, Marc-Etienne.Vargenau@...

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 at
http://spdx.org/system/files/terms.html

I went through looking for inconsistencies between the terms and the spec,
but missed this one.

Gary