If we go back to using "relationship_type", do we still need "name" and "description" ?
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
Unless anyone has any objections I’ll go through the documents tomorrow and make this update. On 8/10/16, 5:14 PM, "Back, Greg" < gback@mitre.org> wrote: Agreed. There's also type, definition_type, and definition properties on marking-definition objects, so it's not unprecedented (and actually rather consistent). Greg -----Original Message----- From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Wunder, John A. Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:25 PM To: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>; Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com> Cc: Kemp, David P <dpkemp@nsa.gov>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
Agreed. I think our reservations about having both “type” and “relationship_type” are probably very minor compared to the extra clarity this would bring.
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM To: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com> Cc: "Kemp, David P" <dpkemp@nsa.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
That makes sense to me to change the field from name to relationship-type, and would potentially help differentiate the SROs from the SDOs.
Cheers Terry MacDonald Cosive
On 9/08/2016 3:30 AM, "Paul Patrick" <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com <mailto:Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com> > wrote:
For a relationship, I agree with David that ‘relationship-type’ would be better than name
Paul Patrick
On 8/8/16, 11:17 AM, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kemp, David P" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of dpkemp@nsa.gov <mailto:dpkemp@nsa.gov> > wrote:
"Threat Actor A" and "Threat Actor B" are vertex unique identifiers which (I assume) would be carried in the name field of those vertices. "related-to" is a class of edge but does not identify a specific edge, so I'd think that "label" or "relationship-type" is more appropriate than "name".
Is an edge uniquely identified by anything other than two vertex IDs? If not, edges would not have names.
Dave
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
|