Re: [cti-users] Re: Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

["Jacobsen, Jasen W." <jasenj1@mitre.org>]

I really don't think, and certainly hope very deeply, that Bret is not proposing STIX goes straight to JSONSchema without having a higher level UML or other abstract data model. What I believe is being proposed is that the abstract data model have an official implementation using JSONSchema, and further that that schema defines a very traditional looking tree hierarchy of objects & properties. I suspect one could define JSON-LD using JSONSchema, but it would be a very "loose" schema.

Here's an email thread from the "linked-json" mailing list discussing the relationship between JSON-LD and JSON Schema:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Aug/0050.html

- Jasen.

From: <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 AM
To: "Grobauer, Bernd" <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com>
Cc: "terry.macdonald@threatloop.com" <terry.macdonald@threatloop.com>, "cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
Subject: [cti-users] Re: Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

Bernd,

I think it's also important to keep the following in mind.

If the STIX specification data model is JSONSchema then the only serialization format is JSON.