[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Versioning terminology
John – I think the following needs to be changed “: if the fields and values of that version are changed and the changed object is shared in a STIX ecosystem” This sentence suggests that versioning applies to objects when the object is changed AND shared. Not just changed. I believe that it would be better/easier if versioning occurs
when objects are changed regardless of whether a specific object is shared or not. It will be simpler to track in products.
My reason is
a)
I share a v1 obj1 with vendor A.
b)
Then I change the object to v2 obj1 and share with vendor B.
c)
Then change the object again to v3 obj1 and share again with vendor B.
Do I have to remember that I only shared v1 with vendor A? So if I change the object again (a 4th time) and share with vendor B that this is now v2 for vendor
A? Basically my sequence would require producers to keep track of all versions of objects and to whom they have shared them with. I suggest that would never work in practice. So the sentence should be changed to ““: if the fields and values of
that version are changed” and remove the statement on sharing with STIX ecosystem. allan From: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Wunder, John" <jwunder@mitre.org> Hey all, I was talking with Terry just now and one thing he mentioned was that our usage of the terms “object” and “object series” in versioning might not be super intuitive to new users. As a reminder, here’s the
current definitions:
The way we use these terms in versioning is very solid and overall I think we’re all pretty happy with how versioning works in general. Terry pointed out, though, that the use of the term object/object series
could be better. People, for the most part, think about objects as the persistent thing that get versioned over time. So, if anything, the thing we call “object series” should really be called just “object”. We could then call what we now call “object” an
“object revision”. So, the new definitions would be:
So…what do you think? Do you like these new terms? I do, I think they make it significantly more clear for the majority of people who think about objects and versions rather than object series and objects
in that series. John |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]