RE: [cti-users] [cti-stix] [cti-users] MTI Binding

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>]

Agreed.

I hope I have communicated a perspective and option sufficiently, as have others. We can let this settle for a while as well as work on some examples. When I can come up for air I will work on a full tool chain example – UML/RDF Schema/JSON-LD.

So I agree this conversation should come off the front burner.

-Cory

 

From: Davidson II, Mark S [mailto:mdavidson@mitre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Jordan, Bret; Cory Casanave
Cc: Barnum, Sean D.; Jason Keirstead; Terry MacDonald; cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org; Wunder, John A.
Subject: RE: [cti-users] [cti-stix] [cti-users] MTI Binding

 

I’d like to offer a challenge: How do we move on from this conversation?

(Note: Sean’s/John’s emails came out while I was writing this – I think we’re on the same page)

 

I think we’ve heard everyone’s viewpoint at least once, and we’re starting to hear certain viewpoints multiple times. I don’t think we’re going to come to a consensus in this thread – can we find some common ground and then apply this energy to other problems?

 

In this thread, I’ve heard people advocating for both JSON and JSON-LD. I have not heard anyone advocating for another MTI binding. I also have not heard a challenge to the idea that we should have one MTI format. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d say that more people are for JSON than for JSON-LD, though we do not yet have a consensus. I hope I have said nothing controversial in this paragraph.

 

Here is my proposal for moving forward: JSON and JSON-LD are the current contenders for the MTI Binding, and prototypes/examples are preferred (but not required) to be in one of these formats. Once we get some real discussion under our belt in terms of mockups and use-cases, we will be able to revisit this discussion with more information.

 

What is the next most important topic we should be discussing?

 

Thank you.

-Mark