Definition of the release_package_information.json file format

I am trying to find the specification for the format of the release_package_information.json file. I believe it should look like this, but cannot find any original information following the confluence site migration.

"packageComposition" : {
   "essentialComponents" : {
     "[moduleID of package being described]" : {
       "[effectiveTime of package being described]" : {
         "[moduleID + FSN of module 1 being included in package, that must form part of this product whenever it's used]" : "[effectiveTime of module 1 being included in package]",
         "[moduleID + FSN of module 2 being included in package, that must form part of this product whenever it's used]": "[effectiveTime of module 2 being included in package]"
       }
     }
   },
   "optionalComponents" : {
     "[moduleID of package being described]" : {
       "[effectiveTime of package being described]" : {
         "[moduleID + FSN of module 1 being included in package, that can optionally form part of this product whenever it's used]" : "[effectiveTime of module 1 being included in package]",
         "[moduleID + FSN of module 2 being included in package, that can optionally form part of this product whenever it's used]": "[effectiveTime of module 2 being included in package]"
       }
     }
   }
 }

I found this in the new Spaces - https://conf.spaces.snomed.org/wiki/spaces/RMT/pages/131957934/Update+to+the+.JSON+file+metadata+-+addition+of+Package+Composition+data.

Can you see it?

Hi @mlawley - I’ve added a page to the Release File Spec site, as the original spec was held in an internal page due to it also containing system config info: Metadata Files | SNOMED International Documents As you mentioned above (and Rory then tagged) there is an ongoing discussion in the TRAG on how best to extend this, in a similar format to the one you listed. However, as the TRAG haven’t yet reached a consensus on this, the spec currently shows the existing format. Would you like me to push this discussion up the agenda for the October meetings, so we can force a conclusion and move to a new format?