[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: clarification question: new SDO vs SCO types
Hi again, I have one more clarification question that I am hoping someone can answer. In the specification there doesn't seem to be any property that distinguishes SDOs from SCOs, other than the "type" property (meaning, you have to know the type hierarchy to know that "location" is an SDO but "email-message" is an SCO). How, then, does an implementer know if a newly defined type, provided by the extension mechanism, is an SDO or SCO? The answer may possible be: they don't. While I can't see a big problem with not knowing this information for a particular object, I can see two minor possible problems: (1) the "consists-of" relationship can take as a a target "all STIX CSOs", so if you don't know which newly defined objects are CSOs you don't know which types are valid in this position. I may have missed analogous cases elsewhere in the specification. And, (2), there are semantic differences between the two classes and so implementations may wish to handle SDOs vs SCOs differently, and so not knowing if a newly defined type is one or the other would make different behaviors for SDOs for SCOs problematic. Any insight you can give into this matter would be much appreciated. Best, Mark _______________________ Mark A. Finlayson, Ph.D. Eminent Scholar Chaired Associate Professor, FIU KFSCIS, Cognac Lab Interim Associate Director, FIU KFSCIS Edison Fellow for AI, USPTO 11200 SW 8th Street, CASE Room 362, Miami, FL 33199 +1.305.348.7988 (office); +1.617.515.0708 (mobile); markaf@fiu.edu .
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]