RE: [cacao] Terminology Committee Note

["John Morris" <johnmorr@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Allan,

 

My thought was a singular doc to be shared as an input to multiple specs. That said it would have to be the case that, although there may be opinions resulting in multiple approaches, that there would still need to be agreement by the TC upon a single playbook terminology. Otherwise I suppose I would not be in favor of a committee note and we would require allowing it to diverge into two terminologies organic to each document.

 

Thanks,

John

 

----- Original message -----
From: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Sent by: <cacao@lists.oasis-open.org>
To: John Morris <johnmorr@us.ibm.com>, "cacao@lists.oasis-open.org" <cacao@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cacao] Terminology Committee Note
Date: Thu, Feb 20, 2020 1:53 PM
 

Hi John

 

1. I think itâs important we have agreement across the TC on terminology/taxonomy so agree we need to have it written down/captured.
2. Similarly its important to be able to revise and update it as the standards process progresses as we discover gaps or changes that we all agree need to be made.
3. From a practical nature of readability and use of terms in the specs, having to refer to multiple documents to understand specifications or read them, makes it harder on people to read and/or consume the specs. We just need to balance having too many docs vs readability/understandability on the primary spec(s).
   1. With online documents, this is easily solved by embedded a link in the spec to a separate definition/doc that contains the taxonomy/terminology. However, when you start distributing word docs and/or PDFs for the spec then you have to distribute 2 or more docs.
   2. In STIX/TAXII work, that TC started out with many sub-documents (for various reasons) but in the end the group decided to consolidated the docs into fewer docs for readability/use of the spec.

 

Whether this TC wants to have separate docs or 1 document is up to the group.

 

Howeverâ..

 

If the decision is 2 documents then this group has to be willing to do the actual work of helping create and maintain those separate documents. Its easy to suggest changes but you need to be willing to help do the work also.

 

Allan Thomson

CTO (+1-408-331-6646)

LookingGlass Cyber Solutions

 

From: <cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John Morris <johnmorr@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 9:10 AM
To: "cacao@lists.oasis-open.org" <cacao@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cacao] Terminology Committee Note

 

THIS EMAIL ORIGINATES FROM OUTSIDE OF LOOKINGGLASS

Recently a minor, avoidable concern caused by a need to reconcile versions of the "Terminology" section across multiple documents led to the question of whether that content should be represented singly in a committee note. I'd like to support and open to further discussion this option in an effort to streamline reconciliation.

 

For those not familiar with the instrument, the detail surrounding the form of a committee note may be found at:
https://oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/oasis-defined-terms-2018-05-22#dCommitteeNote

 

My Thanks,

John Morris
IBM CCOE

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php