[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cti-users] Vote NO on JSON - Vote YES on JSON-LD and here is why...
|
" Doing it upside down will not, IMHO, lead to a usable result or widespread adoption." This comment is where I have a slight problem. The upside down development process may not be perfect, but it has worked 'well enough' up to this point. OASIS CTI is the largest standards group that OASIS has had so far as I understand
it, so STIX/TAXII/CybOX must be fairly useful and have reached a reasonable adoption even in its current bohemian state to have generated such interest. STIX itself is IMHO empirical evidence that sometimes good enough is good enough.
That said, if there is a way that we can improve the model and the way we derive serializations
without impacting implementers onerously, then I am very keen to see it. Cheers Terry MacDonald Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company +61 (407) 203 206 | terry@soltra.com
-----Original Message----- Ivan, This is a discussion we should have. I am not opposed to well-formed OWL either, what is important is that we have a semantic description. What we have found in threat/risk is that in conceptual UML models we have 90% of the expressiveness
of OWL in addition to being able to assert some things OWL is very bad at, such as the time, context and provenance of statements. Keep in mind we are using UML based on a specific profile for this purpose. What concerns me more is statement like we should refactor first and then look at the models. Valid refactoring at a syntax level has gone wrong every time I have seen it as what your syntax means gets confused and inconsistent. This
becomes a barrier for implementation and interoperability. Whatever the language of _expression_, the model should be where the concepts and their relationships are figured out - we can then come up with more or more syntax representations for it. Doing it upside
down will not, IMHO, lead to a usable result or widespread adoption. -Cory -----Original Message----- From: Kirillov, Ivan A. [mailto:ikirillov@mitre.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:21 AM To: Cory Casanave; 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... That doesn’t answer my question. You’re still not getting a true ontology - just various auto-generated schemas based on UML, which I have yet to see be proven as useful. My inclination that we really need to rebuild STIX/CybOX from
the ground up in RDF/OWL, including on making sure that we have the right set of instances, datatype properties, object properties, etc. if we JSON-LD or another ontology-based exchange to be useful. Otherwise, I feel that JSON schema offers the best value
in the interim and will help driven adoption. Again, we can always revisit the JSON-LD question when we are ready. Regards, Ivan On 11/23/15, 4:32 PM, "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@modeldriven.com> wrote: >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> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]