Great. Thanks Karen. - Mark

I was OK with 3.1.1 as it was – although I see that describe should be describes. I think archiving the way it was in 3.1.1 is consistent with how it is used in 4.1. And I am also OK with the way

Thank you Karen, as always – excellent advice. I made your recommended changes which are highlighted in yellow: https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-1.1.draft.pdf

First – what an amazing and excellent document – kudos to everyone for the focused energy that went into it. It is just awesome! On 3.1 – I wonder whether a non-English speaker might read

>>another set of eyes is always appreciated. To clarify what feedback we are accepting on the 1.1 version of the spec at this stage are: · Feedback on Section 3.1 (all levels) ·

My mistake! I'll read the latest. Cheers Steve Steve Cropper +1 925 978 3457

Hi Steve, I spend the last week proofing, cleaning up and reviewing the doc formatting. Those changes were fixed in the latest version which also include the new 4.1 text. The latest version can

Apologies for this being past the deadline. Will there be a grammar check before locking 1.1 down? I see a number of sentences that don't make sense which look like an edit was made where a word

Section 3.1 was conceived to ensure a compliance program creates and manages a FOSS bill of materials for each software release. The objective of the rewrite below is to capture the essences of that

Thanks Nori! Looking forward to welcoming our first Japanese translation to the project. Regards Shane

Hi Mark I believe this captures precisely what was discussed and agreed. Regards Shane

Hi Jilayne, The public comments window technically closed on Sunday (3/19). All issues raised by Sunday, including SPDX inclusion, have been addressed. There was one more topic I promised to

Hi Shane Thanks for the response. >I defer to Mark on the specifics of the process to become maintainer. Mark, as a ballpark suggestion, perhaps it is >enough for us to have a known party such as

I’m re-sending this in an edited version as there we some suggestions here that never made to the discussion on the call, and some of them are pretty minor: Suggested edits in red with the relevant

Agree, looks good to me too. From: <openchain-bounces@...> on behalf of Kate Stewart <kstewart@...> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:41 AM To: Mark Gisi <Mark.Gisi@...> Cc: OpenChain

Greetings all, Agree with Mark’s suggestion that this could also be leveraged by the certification system. I would be interested in participating and contributing to any machine readable

Thanks Mark. Looks good to me! Kate

>> Has there been any thought to putting all this in a machine readable format like .yml? This is the first suggestion that I am aware of. If there is sufficient demand for a machine readable

I think that the SPDX folks have settled on RTF. But I suspect there are ways to output YAML from RTF, or at least output JSON. Fascinating. Would be interesting to see how OpenChain might be able

John et.al. Glad you mentioned that, and recently I came across the RASE (Requirement, Applicability, Selection and Exceptions) method of a Norwegian named Eilif Hjelseth with applications in