Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding

[Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@threatloop.com>]

I disagree with Brett's statement that the only binding should be JSON. I believe that the only binding should be a binary protocol of some sort. We differ in our beliefs there, but we do both believe there should only be a single binding. One way to do it.

The protocol discussion and testing stages should be very interesting when we go through the various options as a community.

Cheers
Terry MacDonald

> On 30 Jul 2015 1:38 pm, "Eric Burger" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Fine with me. Anyone else?
>>
>> The counter argument might be “Why bother with UML?” I would offer it is because UML and OWL will let us see the actual relationships. What may be cool is to compile them into JSON bindings. That’s a <hint> research project.
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@BLUECOAT.COM> wrote:
>> >
>> > On the community call there was a statement made that STIX will continue down the old path of UML and then OWL with bindings for XML and others.  There needs to be a single binding, and it should be JSON.  The only reason I wanted UML was to break our dependency on XML-isims to make it easier to do JSON.
>> >
>> > Bret
>> >
>> > Sent from my Commodore 64
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> >
>>