RE: [cti-users] OWL representation of STIX 2

[Ryan Hohimer <rhohimer@champtc.com>]

Paul,

I would very much like to talk with you about your experiences. As I mentioned, I’m authoring a STIX 2 owl representation and have found multiple points where I may be making decisions that we may regret later.

For instance, I am twisted around the axle about how to represent observables. These have been first order objects in my previous modeling. Not modeling an Observable class seems problematic at best.

Additionally, I’d like to represent the relationships to other cyber classifications, enumerations, dictionaries, and non-cyber domain models in a smart fashion.

 

Thanks,

Ryan E. Hohimer
Chief Technology Officer
CHAMPION Technology Company Inc.
1838-B Terminal Drive
Richland, WA 99354
(509) 940-1818 ext 102

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail so our records can be corrected.

 

From: Paul Patrick [mailto:Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 3:36 PM
To: Ryan Hohimer <rhohimer@champtc.com>
Cc: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-users] OWL representation of STIX 2

 

Ryan,

 

We’ve been using OWL since before STIX 1 came out and have modeled STIX 1, CybOX, and MAEC 4.1.  We’ve more recently updated our OWL model to be able to support STIX 2 as well as the MAEC 5 efforts as well.

 

We’d be happy to talk with you about our experiences.

 

 

Paul Patrick

Chief Architect, Global Services and Intelligence

FireEye Corp.

 

 

 

 

From: Ryan Hohimer <rhohimer@champtc.com>
Date: October 4, 2017 at 1:48:46 PM EDT
To: "cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-users] OWL representation of STIX 2

We are incorporating an OWL representation of STIX 2 into our DarkLight product. The current STIX specification and architecture are not as smooth a fit as I would like, but it is what it is. I have not seen nor heard of anyone working on an OWL representation effort.

 

We have the Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R) background to be comfortable in developing an OWL representation, but would prefer not to do so in a vacuum or in the dark. Is anyone else working on an OWL representation that would like to collaborate? We can do the “heavy lifting” as it is an integral part of our AI solution. Having the perspective of other pragmatic users would be welcomed. Obviously, our goal is to use the W3C formal ontological language to support semantic interoperability between knowledge-based solutions, decision automation, and smart orchestration.

 

v/r,

Ryan E. Hohimer
Chief Technology Officer
CHAMPION Technology Company Inc.
1838-B Terminal Drive
Richland, WA 99354
(509) 940-1818 ext 102

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail so our records can be corrected.

 

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.