I like artifact as well. I acknowledge that it has the implication of only a single entity, but I think it's still our best option. We should make it clear that a "logical artifact" can refer to multiple files.Dan LorencOn Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 6:31 PM Martin, Robert A. <email@example.com> wrote:In OMG artifact is the favored term for this.
I support artifact.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Kay Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 6:59:43 PM
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [EXT] Artifact, or Element, or Package
Here is another nomenclature question for our group. I was talking with Kate Stewart (Linux Foundation, SPDX) this afternoon. We were discussing what to call the ‘target’ or ‘object’ of an SBOM. In other words, what is the ‘thing’ an SBOM describes. We think the ‘thing’ is broad, where it may span the following:
- File diff
- Commit, File Archive, Package, Container (all of which span multiple files)
- File System, Cloud Service (all of which span multiple packages, containers, etc.)
Kate mentioned that in SPDX today the ‘thing’ is an ‘element’. (Not a ‘package’ – Philippe-Emmanuel, we may have been mapping to the wrong SPDX element).
I propose that for the SBOM we call the ‘thing’ an ‘artifact’. This has the following implications:
- SPDX 3.0 would need to rename the ‘element’ field to ‘artifact’.
- Philippe-Emmanuel would need to update the SBOM model to center around the term ‘artifact’.
Does this work? Thoughts?