OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sarif message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [sarif] RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more


So attachments used to have regions which could be used to annotate a region in the attachment. If simplify to a file location, don’t we lose it?

 

The same file in the table could be annotated in separate ways, so we can use a unique file location to for this.

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Michael Fanning
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:37 PM
To: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>; sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sarif] RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more

 

What has happened to the annotations that are associated with an attachment? Can you provide a more comprehensive view of the final type definitions you have in mind?

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:52 PM
To: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sarif] RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more

 

I’m sorry, I was so excited about this idea that I was inaccurate. conversionProvenance is of type physicalLocation[] (and physicalLocation = fileLocation + region), not of type attachment[]. And it’s the invocation object, not the run object, that has an attachments property.

 

But I still think replacing the attachment object with the file.description property is a good idea!

 

From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:47 PM
To: 'sarif@lists.oasis-open.org' <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
Importance: High

 

Also, I would add a new permittted value analysisToolLogFile in file.roles.

 

From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:41 PM
To: 'sarif@lists.oasis-open.org' <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
Importance: High

 

As you know, both run and result have a property attachments of type attachment[]. result also has conversionProvenance of type attachment[]. An attachment is nothing but a fileLocation plus a description. The spec says this about description:

 

An attachment object SHOULD contain a property named description whose value is a message object (§3.9) describing the role played by the attachment.

 

The “role”, huh? Be we just added a roles property to the file object! So perhaps the file object is also the natural place for description. Then we don’t need the attachment object, and instead we have:

 

file

  =role

  +description:message

run:

  ~attachments:fileLocation[]

 

result:

  ~attachments:fileLocation[]

  ~conversionProvenance:fileLocation[]

 

-attachment

 

I stumbled on this as I was starting to write the words for Issue #134,  “conversion.analysisToolLogFileLocation should be an array”, which made me look at result.conversionProvenance and wonder why it was an attachment[].

 

If we agree, I’d like to do this in the same change draft as the one I’m writing for #134, since they both touch result.conversionProvenance.

 

Thoughts?

Larry

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]