[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal

Greetings all,


I completed updating the spreadsheets and adding issues for all of the proposed changes in the SBOM SPDX Compatibility Analysis.


Anything I thought was structure, I added an issue – the complete list of SBOM issues can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/sig-security-sbom/issues


There is a total of 12 issues added.  Not all of the issues are the same priority or difficulty.  I would recommend we start our Monday discussion with the external document reference issue: https://github.com/cdfoundation/sig-security-sbom/issues/10


I updated the classes attributes spreadsheet. I prefixed the comment with SPDX: if it is directly related to SPDX compatibility and with GO: if it is just my opinion (my initials).  There is a total of 21 suggested changes between Philippe, SPDX analysis, and myself.


The enumerations literals sheet has also been updated.  I added a sheet with all SPDX relationship types to make it easier to compare. There are 11 proposed changes to the sheet.


I also added an issue to the SPDX specification to track adding artifactType as a required attribute in SPDX 3.0: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/171


Best regards,



From: Gary O'Neall <gary@sourceauditor.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 9:58 AM
To: 'Philippe-Emmanuel Douziech' <p.douziech@castsoftware.com>; 'sbom@omg.org' <sbom@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal


Thanks Philippe – having these organized in a table really helps.


BTW – the generated 3T-SBOM-EMS file on the Google Drive looks like it may be an old version.  The modification history in Google Docs doesn’t show any change, but a number of the issues I have identified seem to have been resolved, but the document now appears inconsistent with some of the diagrams (e.g. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1q9v4y6MJBagQn42DMIqwSKU6lerrKWCj).  I’m working from the word doc downloaded from the Git repository: https://github.com/cdfoundation/sig-security-sbom/blob/master/modeling/generated_3T-SBOM-EMS.docx


BTW – from a quick glance, the version that is on Google docs does not have many of the issues identified in my analysis.


I’ll go through my old analysis and move them over to the sheet or add issues to the git repo.





From: Philippe-Emmanuel Douziech <p.douziech@castsoftware.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:06 AM
To: 'sbom@omg.org' <sbom@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal




As discussed yesterday, I produced tables to track change propositions (and justifications)

Best regards




From: Philippe-Emmanuel Douziech
Sent: lundi 6 janvier 2020 08:34
To: Gary O'Neall <gary@sourceauditor.com>; 'William Cox' <WilliamE.Cox@synopsys.com>
Cc: sbom@omg.org
Subject: RE: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal


Hello and a happy successful 2020 to all!

@Gary O'Neall Thanks for your work, I’ll have a look at your document before our weekly call.

On my side, I worked on a JSON schema: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vjnh8FD3GXTqXQ7eK-hD1WfQgm6Y0lPD / https://github.com/cdfoundation/sig-security-sbom/blob/master/modeling/generated_3T-SBOM-EMS.schema.json (for which I also had to change type attributes to specialized xxxType).

Then, @William Cox, I saw a copy of the generated DOCX in the Google Drive ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N-QwH9zN-hX4N3NmtHjzG3k4dP25jTiN ) but I didn’t see the updates. Could you tell me the differences?

Thank you



From: Gary O'Neall <gary@sourceauditor.com>
Sent: samedi 4 janvier 2020 01:53
To: sbom@omg.org
Subject: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal


Greetings all,


I completed a line by line comparison of the SPDX 2.2 UML model with the current SBOM model.  A draft of the results of the analysis are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s4TQN6DgfF6rup_5aQbySQpVrdaaK24ngnRmwqsmmXs/edit?usp=sharing


Feel free to review and comment.


I realize the document may not be very clear in places – it was taking me a lot more time than I had budgeted for the exercise and I thought it would be better to just get out something of a draft rather than waiting until it was more polished.


I found a number of incompatibilities; many were minor differences in the choice of attribute names and a few of there were more structural.


I summarized proposals for both changes to the SBOM model and the SPDX model at the beginning of the document.  All proposals are related to making the 2 models compatible in SPDX 3.0.  There are 31 proposed changes to the SBOM and 13 proposed changes to SPDX.  Since it is easier to change an unpublished standard than to create incompatibilities in existing documents and tools, I leaned more toward changes in the SBOM than changes in SPDX.  Please note that these proposals are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the SPDX community as a whole.  It is likely that these changes will require quite a bit of discussion within the SPDX community and may results in changes or counter-proposals.


There are a couple of categories of changes I would like to highlight:

  • Attribute names in SPDX tend to be unique so that they can be compatible with W3C/RDF existing and proposed vocabularies.  For example, using fileType rather than type within a File Content class allows the attribute to be easily associated with other uses of the term fileType even outside of SPDX.  This was a strong consideration during the SPDX development. 
  • The external document reference structure is different and I believe structurally incompatible.  I’m not sure I fully understand how the SBOM proposed approach will work with concrete documents.  This is something that should probably be discussed on a call.


Best regards,




Gary O'Neall

Principal Consultant

Source Auditor Inc.

Mobile: 408.805.0586

Email: gary@sourceauditor.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.