[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Relationship name tweaks - attributed-to
I am coming around to Terry's way of thinking on this. The single level relationship is much easier to parse and multiple relationships between SDOs only enriches the story we are trying to convey. The relationship we have defined now, attributed-to, is the generic use case. It can be used with a minimum of information, and in many cases is a mere assertion. What Gary and the others are suggesting are more nuanced relationships that convey a deeper meaning. I would expect that if someone were to use a planned-by relationship, there is more evidence to support that, versus a generic attribution. Same for executed-by and others yet to come. We are not restricted to adding these additional relationships. Perhaps it may make more sense to stop at the generic case for 2.0 and if we see significant adoption of some of these other relationship types to add them to the vocabulary in 2.1 and beyond.
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]