specification docs: make metadata field description more clear

fixes #345 fixes #273

parts are superseded by https://github.com/CycloneDX/specification/pull/378 parts are continued in https://github.com/CycloneDX/specification/pull/379

Feb 06 '24 17:02 jkowalleck

Any reason why BOM was changed to document?

Because the described fields do not only apply to BOM, but also to VEX, VDR and anything else that we do not have considered as a use case. It is a general-purpose field not bound to any specific purpose, right?

Feb 10 '24 12:02 jkowalleck

Since there is a dedicated PR specific to the manufacturer descriptive text, perhaps leave it out of this one and then link them making this one a pre-req of the the other.

no need to think about such things. this is what SCM is for, and it will handle it. especially since this PR is about documentation, and the other one is about a feature (that involves some documentation).

the actual thing we need to think about are the possible breaking changes that are coming with the documentation.

Feb 12 '24 18:02 jkowalleck

@mrutkows you requested a change of this PR (via your review), but i do not understand that you want to have changed. Could you clarify?

Feb 12 '24 18:02 jkowalleck

I took your comments and will propose an alternative solution, which is highly driven by https://github.com/CycloneDX/specification/pull/372#issuecomment-1943665322

Feb 14 '24 12:02 jkowalleck

I prefer "BOM" to "document". Yes, I know that CycloneDX does other things, but its primarily a BOM format. A "document" is not applicable to protobuf and any JSON/XML over an API. The word "document" just feeds wrong, feels old

Mar 16 '24 16:03 stevespringett

closed this PR> all intended changes were superseded by other PRs, or were not solvable in a non-breaking way

Mar 17 '24 09:03 jkowalleck