I noticed a few bugs and inconsistencies with an SGF file downloaded from a review. Some of these issues appear to be present with all SGF files downloaded from OGS in general.
This is the review in question:
Here are the issues:
The downloaded SGF file has several more variations that are not visible on the website. For example, see the variations for moves 195, 191, 57, 55, 54, 32 (and maybe others as well) that are present in the SGF file, but are missing when viewing the review online.
The comment in the first node (move 0) is missing in the downloaded SGF file.
The generated file duplicates properties rather using a single property with a list of values, which violates the SGF standard and may cause issues when opening with other software. For example, OGS uses “TR[me]TR[ne]” or “LB[cn:A]LB[dp:C]LB[cr:B]” where it should use “TR[me][ne]” or “LB[cn:A][dp:C][cr:B]” instead.
In the plaintext of the SGF file there is a newline at the end of every comment (before the closing square bracket). This is just a minor formatting issue and not even technically against the SGF standard, but it seems unnecessary and creates a strangely formatted file when there are also two newlines after the closing square bracket of every comment.
I also noticed that all of the SGF files (for both game records and review) seem to have the copyright property set to “CP[online-go.com]”, which would imply the OGS holds copyright on all of the game records and reviews.
Is this really appropriate? I’m not sure if copyright is even applicable to the plain game records (minus annotations and comments), and the reviews would seem to be the creative work of the reviewer (and hence, in many jurisdictions, subject to automatic copyright belonging to the reviewer).