communityspecification / community_specification Goto Github PK

First of all a thank-you to Justin Colannino for pointing me to this project.

I'm still a bit new to advanced GitHub features, so I was sure whether this would merit a new Issue or an Action or a discussion topic in some other forum. So I'll take a shot here first. Feel free to close it if it doesn't belong here.

I'm interested in possibly proposing to my current employer (Open Geospatial Consortium) that we consider trying out the Community Spec in practice. The 1.0 spec could potentially take away a lot of the worry and reinvention that might have otherwise been needed (thanks for this!).

But now I'd like to gain at least a notional understanding of what might take place in the subsequent spec development to create an actual technical specification. It seems to me that perhaps GitHub might be well-suited for carrying out that work as well... maybe even all the way through to source code development and deployment for reference implementations.

Are you aware whether anybody given any thought to this yet? If not, that's fine. I just didn't want to start reinventing any of these wheels either.

Thanks.

Currently in the foreward of https://github.com/CommunitySpecification/Community_Specification/blob/main/7._CS_Template.md#foreword it says:

Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. No party shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.

The not should not be there.

Simple file that provides vulnerability reporting direction & points to linuxfoundation.org/security

In the SPDX License List v3.15 release this past weekend, the Community Specification License was added with the identifier Community-Spec-1.0:

https://spdx.org/licenses/Community-Spec-1.0.html

Is that something that would be worth noting in this repo, perhaps in the README file?

The link https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/how-to-write-standards.pdf in the scope.md file return an HTTP 404 (document not found).

Lines 11 and 13 are duplicative of line 9.

In section 2.1.1.2, the word "in" appears to be inadvertently missing between "included" and "the":

2.1.1.2. For Approved Specifications. Contributor grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) license to its Necessary Claims included the Approved Specification that are within Scope for Licensee’s Implementation of the Approved Specification, except for those patent claims excluded by Contributor under Section 3.

I'm assuming the bolded part is intended to say "included in the Approved Specification..."?