OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [cti] Database Subcommittee / conceptual/logical model subcommittee

It may just be Semantics (go figure ;-): I was equating Conceptual <==>
UML Models (UML being the "form" of the Conceptual representations).  I
will defer to others more familiar with model driven
architectures/methodologies on other "forms" of abstraction
layers/tools/representation if UML is not the correct form for same.

Patrick Maroney
Office:  (856)983-0001
Cell::     (609)841-5104
Email:   pmaroney@specere.org

On 6/24/15, 12:56 PM, "Jerome Athias" <athiasjerome@gmail.com> wrote:

>I would suggest; that a review of the currently available STIX
>Specification Documents, and UML models be performed.
>Making the STIX Specification Documents as final, to then start
>covering Observables as part of the CybOX specification documents.
>Which should be included in the roadmaps of the CTI SCs when created.
>While Conceptual Modeling would help and support the creation of UML
>models, this could potentially (if agreed by SCs) precede UML models
>in the Gantt charts.
>Best regards
>2015-06-24 19:35 GMT+03:00 Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@specere.org>:
>> Level-Set questions:
>> I've presumed the recent "legacy" community discourse on, and consensus
>> for, the priority focus on development of the STIX/CybOX UML Models was
>> given in the transition to OASIS.  This in turn implies consensus that
>> these UML Models are key deliverables (as OASIS Standards) to the CTI TC
>> by the STIX and CybOX SCs.
>> Do we need to re-visit importance of the UML Models as near term
>> deliverables or is there consensus on this point?
>> Procedurally, I don't know if I should direct this to the Chair, make a
>> motion, or use some other method to establish/confirm consensus.
>> in my view this is a critical aspect of the work we are beginning which
>> requires broad consensus in terms of specific deliverables for the CTI
>> (and the sequencing/prioritization of same).
>> Patrick Maroney
>> Office:  (856)983-0001
>> Cell::     (609)841-5104
>> Email:   pmaroney@specere.org
>> On 6/24/15, 11:39 AM, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Jerome
>> Athias" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of athiasjerome@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>I'm a great fan of conceptual models!
>>>I skipped this step while reading the specifications to go directly to
>>>a data relational model, but I can see a lot of benefits producing a
>>>CMap, especially for new adopters (just because one picture can tell
>>>thousands of words). It's easy to share also (e.g. CmapTools)
>>>The issue that I think we would encounter, is not so much about the
>>>level of abstraction (multiple CMaps could resolve that), while there
>>>is not so much concepts there (in CTI). (I used to do CMap for complex
>>>It is mainly, AGAIN, related to the taxonomy.
>>>You could see that when dealing with the extensions points, figuring
>>>out what would be the most appropriate standard/specification to map
>>>CTI to. Things that are around CTI and that you have to deal with,
>>>such like Assets, Vulnerabilities, Exploits, Shellcodes, etc.
>>>But I assure you that it's fascinating ;)
>>>And while all these things are somehow linked together, it makes quite
>>>difficult to make choice to -split- this into multiple models.
>>>(you could look at it in many ways, like asset-centric, risk-based,
>>>vulnerability-based, etc.)
>>>My 2c
>>>2015-06-24 18:18 GMT+03:00 Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>:
>>>> There is certainly a value in a DBMS capability, perhaps one that can
>>>>be implemented across multiple technologies. This may then also relate
>>>>to the "conceptual model" initiatives which have already started. A
>>>>conceptual model can bridge the exchange and repository viewpoints and
>>>>also allow for greater flexibility in implementation technologies. We
>>>>have had great success in generating schema as well as transformations
>>>>between them from models.
>>>> With this in mind perhaps a conceptual and/or logical model
>>>>subcommittee should be considered. Depending on the approach this could
>>>>provide some of the value that is being sought for the database. A
>>>>separation of concerns would allow for the definition of the database
>>>>models with implementation in one or more chosen technologies. Such
>>>>implementation would probably be another activity.
>>>> There is some grey area in what people call conceptual and logical
>>>>models and the levels of abstraction each represents. For me (and many
>>>>others), a conceptual model is a model of how the world is understood -
>>>>it is then a model of the terms and concepts of the world, not a data
>>>>model. An "instance" of a person in a conceptual model is a real person
>>>>- not data. A logical model is then a technology independent data model
>>>>about the world where choices are made as to structure and
>>>>representation. An "instance" of a person in a logical model is data.
>>>>initial activity of a conceptual/logical model subcommittee could be to
>>>>define the purpose, scope and appropriate level of abstraction.
>>>> Of course the model activity is just as relevant to the exchange
>>>>and can help make them more understandable as well as provide a basis
>>>>for support of other technologies (essentially a model driven
>>>>architecture approach).  This works best when the models are the
>>>>normative definition and technology schema are generated from them.
>>>>Since this tends to introduce more change (as well as more
>>>>it would best be coupled with the second phase.
>>>> There has already been work on conceptual models this direction seems
>>>>consistent with the communities direction. With the above in mind we
>>>>want to consider a conceptual and/or logical model subcommittee.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Cory Casanave
>>>> Representing OMG
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On
>>>>Behalf Of Jerome Athias
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 7:06 AM
>>>> To: Eric Burger
>>>> Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [cti] Database Subcommittee
>>>> I wonder if providing consumer-oriented XQuery examples (maybe with
>>>>STIX idioms) would help providing guidance and test/validation cases
>>>> 2015-06-22 14:20 GMT+03:00 Eric Burger <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>:
>>>>> Jerome (as he often does) gets this right in one (how about that -
>>>>>a British colloquialism instead of a US one!).
>>>>> We just submitted a paper for publication at MILCOM looking at
>>>>>STIX/TAXII/CybOX versus IODEF/RID from the perspective of humans
>>>>>machines doing the processing. My guess is you can guess the end of
>>>>>story: STIX/TAXII/CybOX is much better for machines. IODEF/RID is much
>>>>>better for people. Since the goal is for inter-machine communication,
>>>>>you get the point.
>>>>> It does mean there is a lot riding on VERY clear, implementable,
>>>>>interoperable specifications. Debugging this stuff is going to be a
>>>>>nightmare, more especially if the language is so nuanced there are
>>>>>dozens of ways of saying the same thing.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]