Thanks Philippe – having these organized in a table really helps.
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 <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:06 AM
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Analysis of SPDX compatibility with current SBOM proposal
As discussed yesterday, I produced tables to track change propositions (and justifications)
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?
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 Since it is easier to change an unpublished standard than to create incompatibilities in existing documents and tools, I leaned more toward changes in the SBOM than changes in SPDX.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.
Source Auditor Inc.
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.