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

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

Re: Given that, what is the value of JSON-LD in a UML-driven, XSD-derived representation?

JSON-LD, JSON-Schema, RDF Schema and XML Schema can all be produced, in a consistent form, from a well-structured UML model.

-Cory

-----Original Message-----
From: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Kirillov, Ivan A.
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:50 PM
To: Trey Darley; Shawn Riley
Cc: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Vote NO on JSON - Vote YES on JSON-LD and here is why...

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>