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

[Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>]

To be fair, since part of the community has been advocating RDF/OWL2 ontologies since STIX v0.3 and we've had face to face discussions with the STIX community at Black Hat and RSA since 2013 about the ontologies. We do have complete sets of RDF/OWL2 ontologies for each of the standards (STIX, CYBOX, MAEC, CAPEC, CWE, CVE, etc) based on their current versions today. We provided links to these to demonstrate this wasn't just "academic" but real world. Here are links to them. https://github.com/DSIE/cyber-ontology  or  https://github.com/daedafusion/cyber-ontology.

I have not however seen complete JSONSchemas for each standard (STIX, CYBOX, MAEC, etc) based on the current versions. Can you please send links to the complete set of JSONSchemas for each of the standards?

Where was the voices calling for JSON in 2012, 2013 or 2014 when we were working on the semantic ontologies and sharing lessons learned with the community online and face to face?

Best,
Shanw

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kirillov, Ivan A. <ikirillov@mitre.org> wrote:

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>