Thanks, Gary.
Do you know when the python parser will support Tag/Value? Thanks, Dick Brooks Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, Sector Coordinating Council - A Public-Private Partnership Never trust software, always verify and report! <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products> T http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com <http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com <mailto:d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com> Tel: +1 978-696-1788 From: Gary O'Neall <g...@sourceauditor.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:50 PM To: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org Subject: RE: [spdx-tech] Tuesday's tech call Hi Dick - the Tag/Value discussion is definitely on the radar. We will pick this up in the serialization meetings once Kate is back online. Thanks, Gary From: Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> <Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> > On Behalf Of Dick Brooks Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:40 AM To: 'Gary O'Neall' <g...@sourceauditor.com <mailto:g...@sourceauditor.com> >; spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] Tuesday's tech call Gary, One additional request for us implementers; Decide if Tag/Value serialization (and parsing) is supported or not. Thanks, Dick Brooks Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, Sector Coordinating Council - A Public-Private Partnership Never trust software, always verify and report! <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products> T http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com <http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com <mailto:d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com> Tel: +1 978-696-1788 From: Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> <Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> > On Behalf Of Gary O'Neall Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 11:16 PM To: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org <mailto:spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org> Subject: [spdx-tech] Tuesday's tech call For tomorrow's tech call, I have some topics I would like to discuss: * Issue 651 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/651> : Conflicting property names prevents compaction * Issue 572 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/572> : Confirm we have consensus on the data license - I think we can close this issue After reviewing all the open issues, there are a few candidates for discussion on our call: * Issue 630 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/630> : Consider extensibility for package "file" types * Integrity Method related issues and PR's - Issue 595 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/595> , * Issue 561 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/561> : Add Software Level of Support property to Software Package * Issue 522 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/issues/522> : Expressing conformance constraints - should this be moved to 3.1? There are quite a few open issues and pull requests that we need to clean up for the final SPDX 3.0 release (in addition to anything we find in the RC2 review). I would encourage each of the profile teams to filter the open issues and pull requests on the profile labels and review / resolve / update. If you decide to push the resolution to 3.1, please update the milestone. Best regards, Gary -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5559): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/5559 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/104738806/21656 Group Owner: spdx-tech+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
