Gary O'Neall
Gary O'Neall
@puerco @jeff-schutt - Can you review / weigh in - we need to close these before the 3.0 release which is coming up quick
Since removing this will be a breaking change - we need to make a decision within the next few days. If we remove it, adding it back would not be...
@aamedina you raise a good point. We should consider "flattening" the namespaces - which is an approach we took in SPDX 2.X. @aamedina - have you attended the [SPDX tech...
@zvr - As we are getting close to 3.0 release - could you take a look at this suggestion. It would probably be a breaking change to add it after...
@zvr @aamedina @sbarnum - As active RDF contributors, let me know if I missed anything. Suggest we work on these right after RC2 release. We can schedule a one of...
Looks like it was just copied from the SPDX 2.X definitions. @maxhbr If you want to create a PR, we can get this into 3.0, otherwise I'll target it for...
It has been a very long time since this was discussed. I'll move it to 3.1 unless someone wants to volunteer to write a PR.
> Should it hasAsset? In other parts of the SPDX spec, we've used the term `Artifact` to mean something more general than a file.
Moving this to 3.1
@sbarnum - bringing you into this as someone intersecting RDF and security. Any thoughts?