OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti-users message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


I'm confused then. If the community is perfectly happy with an RDF/OWL w/UML data model then that is all that is needed to use the RDF serializations. It seems then the argument is creating additional JSON / JSONSchema on the wire format in addition to the RDF serializations?  Or is the community saying we are ok with having an RDF/OWL w/ UML data model but you will prohibit the community from using any of the existing RDF serializations designed to be used with the data model?

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org> wrote:
I haven’t seen anybody suggest not having an abstract data model (either via RDF, UML, or something else). Bret in particular has been careful to maintain that we will base any serialization on a high-level model.

The question we’re tackling now is whether the on-the-wire MTI format should be something tied directly to RDF, like JSON-LD, or something that's indirectly tied to the high-level model via a binding specification, like JSON with JSONSchema. Both approaches allow for an RDF-based analysis, it’s just a question of whether an RDF-based serialization format is the best approach for sharing data between tools when not all of them will want to do RDF.

FWIW I’m waiting to see what Cory’s examples look like.

John

On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

I just don't see why some here are moving away from the original plan of moving from XML to an abstract data model like RDF. We had face to face discussions on the topic and it's been discussed repeatedly since STIX launched. The whole reason some have been promoting STIX internationally and across the community was because this was the future direction. I certainly don't want to throw away the last 4 years of work on CTI in RDF and the significant advancement in analytic tradecraft it brings. I don’t see why this should be positioned as an either-or decision. The desires of those wanting simple JSON serializations should be fully possible within an RDF-based modeling approach while still enabling us to support moving forward the state of the practice for cyber threat analysts. Please help me understand why after more than 4 years of discussing this transition from XML to an RDF-based modeling approach that we now have people pushing to move the CTI effort in another direction?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Jacobsen, Jasen W. <jasenj1@mitre.org> wrote:
Note that the JSON they provide is JSON-LD. http://docs.publishmydata.com/developers/105_resource_formats.html
And they provide a _javascript_ example of accessing the JSON-LD: http://docs.publishmydata.com/developers/121_example_javascript_filtered_resources.html

Good resource. Thanks for sharing.

- Jasen.

From: <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:28 AM
To: "cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

I wanted to share a link (below) to a blog which talks about RDF serialization formats and while this isn't STIX specific it does use real world data from http://opendatacommunities.org/ which is the UK Department for Communities and Local Government's official Linked Open Data website. As I'm sure everyone is aware both the USA and UK governments have been champions of RDF for several years now and continue to push for open data to made available in RDF.  

http://blog.swirrl.com/articles/rdf-serialisation-formats/   <--NOTE this is from 2012 before the JSON-LD development but it should help those looking for more RDF data then the US Government's 7000+ RDF open data sets. 







[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]