This is excellent. I thought there wouldn’t be any major changes in this version 0.0.9, but I am pleasantly surprised.
I believe it was a wise decision to separate the checklist document from OSAID. This makes the intended thinking behind OSAID easier to understand.
Additionally, splitting the model into “code” and “weights” is a very good idea. At least in Japan, the “code” portion as defined in OSAID 0.0.9 clearly falls under copyright, so it makes sense to separate it from the “weights” portion.
I also noticed when looking at the checklist that there have been revisions to consider those who advocate for the existence of a complete dataset. While I cannot agree with the argument that datasets should be mandatory, I understand the sentiment behind the request. I don’t think there is a significant change in the substantive meaning compared to version 0.0.8, but it does send a message that datasets are also important.