spdx/spdx-3-model

Should the SPDX listed license IRI refer to the general SPDX license or should it be specific to the SPDX 3 version of the license data?

goneall opened this issue · 4 comments

goneall commented

From the discussion on the tech call on 24 Sept. 2024:

Currently we are using the same IRI for both the 2.3 and 3.0 versions of the spec. Is this appropriate since the formats, fields and classes are different?

If not, what should the IRI be?

goneall commented

Discussed on tech call 12 Nov 2024 - did not reach consensus, we'll follow-up via comments on this issue.

goneall commented

Note related issue on how we publish and make available the RDF data for the license individuals: spdx/LicenseListPublisher#183

  • 👍1
goneall commented

I re-read the RDF terms concepts on IRI's and referents.

It seems to me that the IRI of a subject or object should represent the "thing" even if the schema for representing that "thing" changes which leads me to the opinion that we should keep the IRIs the same.

There mention in the concepts document that having the IRI point to an actual schema is convenient. We obviously could not do that if there are 2 different schemas, but pointing to the HTML (as we do today) will get you a good description. Perhaps we can add some bullets on the web page pointing to the different schemas and data formats.

goneall commented

From tech call:

  • If you go to the URL for the license URI, both 2.3 and 3.0 properties will be present (for the RDF format)
  • Use the same IRI for both 2.3 and 3.0
  • Document this approach