[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cti-stix] RE: [cti-users] MTI Binding
Sean, Good summary and context. I would disagree with one point: Re:
It should be pointed out that for this option to really be practical we would need to move our ontology/data-model spec from its current UML model with text docs form to a
full semantic form with dereferenceable structures (such that the JSON-LD context could do the appropriate mappings in an LD fashion. The JASON-LD schema, which is essentially RDF, can be generated from well-formed UML just like XML schema can*. If there were semantics you could not fully represent
in JSON-LD the UML model (and/or generated OWL) could also be referenced to add such semantics. There are a few things you can say in full OWL you can’t say directly in UML and a few things in UML you can’t say directly in OWL – but it seems like the fundamental
needs of CTI are captured in both, and they can be mapped. *Here is a product that does so:
http://www.nomagic.com/products/magicdraw-addons/cameo-concept-modeler-plugin.html It would not be much of a stretch to test generating from your current models to a schema that can be used with JSON-LD (Don’t know if RSA does this, but Nomagic
does). Nomagic copied for comment. -Cory From: Barnum, Sean D. [mailto:sbarnum@mitre.org]
Without going to far down the rabbit hole right now let me take a VERY simple stab at providing some context on your question. Out stack for the CTI TC ecosystem language specs (STIX and CybOX) looks something like:
JSON-LD would basically fit into this stack at the binding specification and representation format levels. The “context” structure of JSON-LD lets you do the sort of mappings from the ontology/data-model to a particular representation that are the purpose of the binding
specifications. In this case the “context” (which can be expressed in a separate reference able file rather than only inline with the content) would capture the binding specification rules for a JSON format implementation and the “context” file(s) itself would
form the JSON representation format implementation specification. At that point instance CTI content could be expressed in JSON with the referenced JSON-LD “context” providing the mechanism for interpreting it. I have not personally worked directly with JSON-LD nor done any sort of very detailed analysis of its capabilities. It is unclear whether or not JSON-LD has adequate
expressivity to fully map our domain or the capability to provide automated validation. It may. It may not. That would be one dimension we would need to explore if we wish to consider JSON-LD as an option (which I would personally support). It should be pointed out that for this option to really be practical we would need to move our ontology/data-model spec from its current UML model with text docs
form to a full semantic form with dereferenceable structures (such that the JSON-LD context could do the appropriate mappings in an LD fashion. This is something we have talked about for quite a while as our ultimate goal for many reasons but it has not to
date been something we have put on the roadmap to tackle for STIX 2.0. Does that help put it in context? Anyone familiar with JSON-LD please feel free to point out any errors in my explanation. sean From:
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on
behalf of Mark Davidson <mdavidson@mitre.org> How does something like JSON-LD fit into the serialization discussion? For the MTI format discussion we are talking about the thing that products will send
to each other (I think, anyway). I did some quick reading on RDF / JSON-LD (complete newbie, forgive my ignorance), and I didn’t get a clear picture on how it would fit. For instance, as a completely trivial example, imagine a tool sending indicators out to sensors: { ‘type’: ‘indicator’, ‘content-type’: ‘snort-signature’, ‘signature’: ‘alert any any’} Would JSON-LD (or something like it) take the place of the JSON listed above? Or would JSON-LD get automagically translated into something that takes the place
of the JSON listed above? Or am I completely off-base in my questions? Thank you. -Mark From: John K. Smith [mailto:jsmith@liveaction.com]
Just my 2 cents … having used RDF, TTL etc for security ontologies, I think leveraging something like JSON-LD will help better adoption
by broader group. Seems like schema.org is using JSON-LD but I’m not sure to what extent. Thanks, JohnS From:cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Shawn Riley Just wanted to share a couple links that might be of interest here for RDF translation. RDFLib is a Python library for working with RDF, a simple yet powerful language for representing information. JSON-LD parser and serializer plugins for RDFLib (Python 2.5+) Here is a online example of a RDF to multi-format translator. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]