-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
clarify use of "bomlink" in schema #217
Comments
Related to #179 |
|
the thing is, we introduced an extra type alias "refType" for strings, to make it clear that some strings are not alike.
in the i propose to introduce a new type "bomlink", a string -alias with a constraint: it must match the pattern
This new type "bomlink" should be added wherever a "bomlink" is allowed/expected, so that digesting software authors are aware from reading the schema, that this special string at certain structures can have more meaning. I might draft a pullrequest to show how this might look like. |
@stevespringett wrote here: #229 (comment)
|
Possibly caused #136 |
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
I am still uncertain which elements allow the use of bomlink.
From use cases it appears to be possible in
externalReferences[].url
,vulnerabilities[].affects[].ref
.Any where else?
I'd suggest enhancing the schema to make it visible where a bomlink is allowed and where it is not.
This helps tool builders, parsers, and most importantly clarifies this from schema, not only some additional pamphlets/texts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: