[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Report object consensus
My Vote: 1.
Single field 2.
I don’t see the purpose of this confidence field – we need some other mechanism to talk about our inclusion beliefs… 3.
Require title 4.
Intent is one of the main differences between a package and a report – so yes From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Wunder, John A. All, Based on the e-mail discussion last week, it seemed like consensus was to have a list of references to content within the report object
rather than to use relationships. Given that, we updated the content in the pre-draft specification, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U48DOJzh2qELOEhhVWz_G6hL0Bazx1Y52wpOeR8jaVk/edit#heading=h.tmlyjpfh5924 We do still have a couple open questions:
1.
Is it better to have one list of references (as we have in the text above), or multiple lists as we do in package? In other words, do we have one field
called report_contains_ref and it has references to indicators, relationships, threat actors, etc. or do we have a field for
indicator_refs, another for relationship_refs, another for threat_actor_refs, etc. We’ll also need to decide on the exact field names to use in either scenario.
2.
Is there a need for a confidence field on report? It wasn’t there in 1.2, so this would be an addition, but at least Sean has noted that it would be useful.
3.
Should
title be required?
4.
In STIX 1.2, there was a report intents field as a controlled vocabulary. Do we need this field, and if so, what should the list of values be? You can
see this text now in the playground doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wiG6RoNEFaE2lrblfgjpu3RTAJZOK2q0b5OxXCaCV14/edit#heading=h.8rupwbdhhtsj Thoughts? FWIW, my answers are:
1.
Single field
2.
I can’t think of a reason to include it, but I’m not really opposed. If we do include it we just need to clearly and carefully specify what the confidence
field is describing confidence for: that the collection of things are related in some way, that the collection of things belong to that title, etc.
3.
Yes.
4.
Probably useful, and we need to think about what type of values we want to put in there. The current list of values is a mess. John |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]