The exact scenario was as follows, the information we store about a file is potentially invalidated with every change to the contents of that file. For example, some code might be added that has different licensing requirements. Or all the code that has a particular licensing requirement might be removed. To make sure that the information in and SPDX file is valid for a particular file it must be possible to verify that its contents are identical to the contents of the file that was analyzed.
In SPDX we support verification of file contents by providing message digests1 of every file. However, message digest (hash) functions come and go. MD/5 used to be the norm but has fallen out of favor. SHA1 is currently very popular but is steadily being replaced with SHA256 and SHA512. We definitely need to support more than one digest algorithm.
We had three basic choices:
- have separate properties for each digest algorithm, each of which would be a sub-property of the
- define datatypes for each digest algorithm and have single
- define a class for digests that encapsulates all the data and have a single
For the first option the graph would look like
<http://zlib.net/zlib-1.2.5.tar.gz#Makefile> a spdx:file; spdx:sha1 "1fac389â€¦"^^xs:hexBinary; spdx:sha256 "4aa8223â€¦"^^xs:hexBinary.
The resulting graphs are simple and self explanatory. Support for new digest algorithms is achieved by the addition of one new properties for each algorithm.
One potential downside is that some tools might not be able to pass through digests for algorithms the do not understand. For example, SPDX provides a tool to translate SPDX RDF data to and from spreadsheets. The digests are inserted into the spreadsheet by the tool looking for the known digest properties and putting that data into the appropriate column in the spreadsheet. This means that novel digest types would be lost in the translation. This could be avoided if the tool supported OWL inferencing but it is unlikely we will implement that in the near future. I think requiring OWL inferencing to work properly is a design smell.
A graph for the second option would look like
<http://zlib.net/zlib-1.2.5.tar.gz#Makefile> a spdx:file; spdx:checksum "1fac389â€¦"^^spdx:sha1Hex; spdx:checksum "4aa8223â€¦"^^spdx:sha256Hex.
The moves the digest algorithm into the datatype specification of the literals. This approach seems quite elegant. There is a single property so it is easy for tools deal with. It is extensible, anyone could define a new datatype. It is relatively compact.
However, there very few ontologies that use xml datatypes in this way. This could be because there are subtle problems with this approach. Or it could be that it is just uncommon. This approach would break down for algorithms that have any secondary parameters. In that case you could combine it with the third option, though.
A graph for the third option would look like
<http://zlib.net/zlib-1.2.5.tar.gz#Makefile> a spdx:file; spdx:checksum [spdx:algorithm <spdx:sha1>; spdx:checksumValue "1fac389â€¦"^^xs:hexBinary]; spdx:checksum [spdx:algorithm <spdx:sha256>; spdx:checksumValue "4aa8223â€¦"^^xs:hexBinary].
In many ways this approach is very similar to the datatype based one. The introduction of anonymous resources does, potentially, allow the addition of additional parameters to the digest algorithm. However, tools that do not understand the algorithm would probably not pass that information though correctly. One practical upside is that the label for particular algorithms can be stored in the RDF. The
<spdx:sha1> resource can have a
dc:title property with value “SHA1”. This would mean that tools don’t necessarily have to implicitly understand a digest type in order to display it to humans.
In the end we decided to use the third approach on SPDX. The additional flexibility was generally found appealing. Having to define a new property for each new digest algorithm was generally viewed as a bit of a kludge. When i presented this issue to the semantic web mailing list there was only one response which preferred the first option, but found the third option acceptable. Most of the people involved in the SPDX effort are not highly experienced RDF modelers. I am not sure if the distaste for defining new properties reflects our relative lack of experience with RDF or if it is more fundamental.
Feedback on this choice is welcome but this post is more of an exploration of the possibilities and implications of those approaches.
We decided to call this property
spdx:checksum. While this is technically a misnomer it does effectively convey the intent of the field.
↩</li> </ol> </div>