Re: [cti-stix] Supporting translations in STIX

[Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>]

Sub-components that are part of a TLO could identify the language if they are in a different language from the container object. 

There are multiple cases where there’s an named attribute defined at a container level that then is defined for child objects or referenced objects from the container.

All base TLO attributes have this same artifact.

allan

On 6/24/16, 8:35 AM, "Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org> wrote:

By adding "lang" at the base TLO level, we are essentially saying that we can't mix languages in a single TLO (at this point). 

I think I'm OK with that, but just wanted to raise the point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On
> Behalf Of Allan Thomson
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:33 AM
> To: Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Supporting translations in STIX
> 
> Regardless of the decision on translation objects, I think a lang base TLO
> attribute to define what language the content is defined in is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Allan
> 
> 
> 
> From: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on
> behalf of "Wunder, John" <jwunder@mitre.org>
> Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:27 AM
> To: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: [cti-stix] Supporting translations in STIX
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> You’re probably aware that we’ve had a bit of work over the past couple
> months on the best approach to support translations in STIX. As I alluded to
> in the prioritization e-mail, it’s getting to the point where we need to decide
> on an approach or we’re at risk of not making the July release date and
> having to postpone until Winter. As I see it, we have a couple options.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.      We can decide on a general approach and try to prove that it will work
> for MVP. Ideally, it would be a fairly minimalist approach so that we can be
> confident in the flows.
> 
> a.      Along those lines, I wrote up some normative text on an approach we
> discussed on Slack. Translations are very minimal objects (not standard TLOs)
> and refer to other TLOs to translate their titles and descriptions. It’s here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wiG6RoNEFaE2lrblfgjpu3RTAJZOK2q
> 0b5OxXCaCV14/edit#heading=h.aq3spklsm9m6
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wiG6RoNEFaE2lrblfgjpu3RTAJZOK2
> q0b5OxXCaCV14/edit#heading=h.aq3spklsm9m6>
> 
> b.      If we think that approach is close enough to agree on by MVP we can
> continue to evolve that.
> 
> c.       If you have a different approach that you think we can agree on, please
> write up some normative text and submit it to the full list.
> 
> 2.      Alternatively, we can implement something super minimalist now and
> delay until winter (6 months) to make sure we get this right
> 
> a.      IMO if we add a “lang” property to all TLOs we can provide some
> immediate capability and build on it in the winter.
> 
> 
> 
> My preference at this point is #2a. Let’s just add a “lang” tag to TLO common
> properties, put the discussion on hold while we finish MVP, and then resume
> in August. Then we can spend the fall making sure we get it right. At the
> same time, we enable an ecosystem where TLOs are in specific languages
> and so people can innovate and try out different approaches. That said, if
> people think #1 is close, I’m happy to continue trying to push that forward.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> John

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>