Alexios Zavras (zvr)
Alexios Zavras (zvr)
So, the final outcome is that we can (and must) have links not showing, like: > see [SPDX](https://spdx.org/) which is written as: ``` see [SPDX](https://spdx.org/) ``` and the production process...
They are not part of the spec. They are part of the SPDX License List, at https://spdx.org/licenses/
Yes, in SPDXv2 the License List was part of the spec. In SPDXv3 it's not. I agree that it should be stated in the changes between versions 2 and 3.
The Legal team was waiting the freeze/publication of 3.0.0 in order to change their public numbering. Let's keep it in our spec -- and maybe document that earlier versions `X.Y`...
If someone can provide the correct SHACL to add, I can easily add it to the generated ontology. @sbarnum , any ideas?
If we want to have it so that this is enforced on arbitrary SPDX data, we should construct some SHACL that says "select all objects of type X (and not...
So, this PR was about adding quick notes from the meeting we had about SHACL. It seems we want better documentation, so I'll just close and abandon this. I've opened...
Thanks for the comment, but I'm not sure I understand... In SPDXv3 we _do_ use IRIs that are "per-profile", like `http://spdx.org/rdf/v3/Software/Package`. We do not have separate ontologies (yet?) because frankly...
This requires careful thought and planning. Pushing it to post 3.x.
As you correctly point out, @davaya, this is about serialization(s), not the model. Some (most?) serializations would consider the different orderings to be the same "value", since the underlying data...