Agreed with both options, either are good to me, probably favoring the later if it means a faster turn-around to standardization.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 4:50 PM Gary O'Neall <g...@sourceauditor.com> wrote: > Hi Brandon and SPDX tech team, > > > > I just checked and it looks like “documentDescribed” is already optional > in the JSON Schema, which should relieve some of the pressure on this issue. > > > > My interpretation of the “documentDescribes” is that it is really a > “shortcut” for the DESCRIBES relationships on the SpdxDocument. > > > > In the Java tools, I treat it as 100% equivalent to a DESCRIBES > relationship between the SpdxDocument and the SPDX element represented by > the SPDX ID’s in the list of “documentDescribes”. I basically translate on > deserialization to relationships and translate back on serialization. > > > > Note: this is very similar to the “hasFile” property on the SpdxPackage > which is equivalent to the CONTAINS relationship from the package to the > file. We may want to include the “hasFiles” in the same discussion and > resolution since they are treated similarly. > > > > In terms of resolution for the spec, my first choice would be to document > the JSON serialization to the same level we document the tag/value. > Unfortunately, we were not able to get anyone to volunteer and/or > follow-through on documenting JSON in the text. We have more volunteers > for the 3.0 spec, so I’m hopeful we’ll have this resolved once 3.0 releases. > > > > My second choice would be to include the JSON schema in the spec itself. > It would be good to have a semi-formal review of the schema since we’ve > missed things in the past and some of the descriptions could be clearer. > This would be feasible in the 2.X timeframe since we already have a Schema > to start with. > > > > I would be nervous about removing the fields. It would simplify tooling, > but it would create compatibility issues for anyone already using those > fields. > > > > Thanks, > Gary > > > > *From:* Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> *On Behalf Of > *Brandon Lum via lists.spdx.org > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:07 PM > *To:* l...@google.com > *Cc:* Gary O'Neall <g...@sourceauditor.com>; SPDX Technical Mailing List < > Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> > *Subject:* Re: [spdx-tech] clarification around "documentDescribes" field > > > > Reviving this thread again since there is a little bit of ambiguity where > these fields are part of the schema but their behavior is not technically > described in the upstream specification. i.e. "documentDescribes" isn't in > the ISO spec definition. > > > > Would the resolution be to push for the JSON schema to be incorporated > into the spec via its serialization specification or to remove these fields > or make them optional in the JSON schema? > > > > Please help correct my understanding if i've missed something! > > > > Thanks > > Brandon > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:16 PM Brandon Lum via lists.spdx.org <lumb= > google....@lists.spdx.org> wrote: > > Awesome! Thanks for the context and clarification Gary! > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 8:09 AM Gary O'Neall <g...@sourceauditor.com> > wrote: > > Hi Brandon, > > > > I believe it is safe to ignore the v2.2.0 JSON schema. > > > > The “describesPackages” was deprecated on release 2.0 of the spec and is > only used for compatibility with pre 2.0 spec version using the RDF > format. There is an open issue to remove this property > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/534>. It was probably in the > 2.2.0 JSON schema due to it being generated from the RDF schema which still > has the deprecated property. It looks like PR #528 > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/pull/528/files> is where the property > was replaced with the more appropriate “documentDescribes”. > > > > In the past, we’ve used the JSON examples as the primary documentation for > the JSON format. With the fixes from PR 528, we should be able to use both > the JSON Schema and the examples. The documentation for the JSON format > should be dramatically improved in the 3.0 spec. > > > > Cheers, > Gary > > > > > > *From:* Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> *On Behalf Of > *Brandon Lum via lists.spdx.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 4, 2023 1:13 AM > *To:* SPDX Technical Mailing List <Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> > *Subject:* [spdx-tech] clarification around "documentDescribes" field > > > > Hi! > > > > An issue <https://github.com/spdx/tools-golang/issues/166> was opened in > tools-golang around the missing "documentDescribes" field, which is part of > the JSON schema. > > > > For v2.2.1 and above, the field is present, however, in v2.2.0 of the spec > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/v2.2/schemas/spdx-schema.json>, > it looks like the field is called "describesPackages", however, in the same > tag, the v2.2.0 example > <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/v2.2/examples/SPDXJSONExample-v2.2.spdx.json#L58> > uses "documentDescribes". > > > > Based on some of the wording from Gary's Java library around 2020, and > looking through the v2.2.0 docs, i'm guessing that the JSON spec was still > not fully approved then... So it should be safe to ignore the v2.2.0 JSON > schema spec? > > > > Cheers > > Brandon > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4983): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4983 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/96047024/21656 Group Owner: spdx-tech+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
