As discussed in ADMS.F/OSS: Virtual Meeting 2012.02.07, the Working Group must consider the SPDX for reuse. To this end, the differences and commonalities between both undertakings must be made explicit.
Component
CodeCategory
Related Work
Login or
create an account to comment.
Comments
Both specifications have different use cases:
Both specifications also have a different conceptualisation: SPDX is not concerned with metadata about "immaterial" concepts such as the "admssw:software project" or the "admsw:software asset", but it provides detailed licensing infromation about the "spdx:Package" and "spdx:File". In my opinion, both the concepts "spdx:package" and "spdx:file" maps to the concept "admssw:software distribution", which is the physical embodiment of an asset.
There is a combined use case possible: the SPDX licensing information of software packages can also be included in software catalogues, making it possible for users to explore, find, identify, select, and obtain SPDX licensing metadata about "spdx:software packages" from a software catalogue.
Proposal: To realise this synergy the following relationships should be added to the ADMS.F/OSS conceptual model and RDF Schema:
New relationship "admssw: spdxDocument": " the SPDX specification allows navigating from an spdx:Document to a spdx:Package using the spdx:describesPackage relationship. It makes sense to have a reverse relationship, allowing to navigate from a admssw:SoftwareDistribution to an spdx:Document. Ideally, this relationship is provided by the SPDX vocabulary...
SPDX is Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 unported.