Re: [cti-users] Vote NO on JSON - Vote YES on JSON-LD and here is why...

["Kirillov, Ivan A." <ikirillov@mitre.org>]

To add to Trey’s point below, JSON-LD would be a much more logical choice if STIX and CybOX had native ontological (RDF/OWL) representations. While this is likely a direction we’re heading in, it’s not where we are at today. Given that, what is the value of JSON-LD in a UML-driven, XSD-derived representation?

Regards,
Ivan




On 11/23/15, 4:06 AM, "Trey Darley" <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of trey@soltra.com> wrote:

>*Nor* is it the case that we are ruling out standardizing a JSON-LD
>CTI serialization schema *in future*. From the mail that went out
>Friday:
>
><snip>
>Likewise, the co-chairs recognize that there will be communities of
>interest requiring alternative serialization formats (XML, protobufs,
>JSON-LD, OWL, etc). The OASIS TC has a role to play in helping to
>standardize these alternative representations to ensure
>interoperabilitity. However, that work effort lies in the future.
>First we must complete the task at hand.
></snip>