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

You can use UML at various levels of abstraction. It has its roots in OO and can be very close to a OO language model or can be used at a more conceptual level. It depends on the subject of the model.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Maroney [mailto:Pmaroney@Specere.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Jerome Athias
Cc: Richard Struse; Chet Ensign; Eric Burger; cti@lists.oasis-open.org; Cory Casanave
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 a  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 SCs  (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 
>>>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 in models with implementation in one or more chosen 
>>>>technologies. Such implementation would probably be another 
>>>> 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 
>>>>schema 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 
>>>>Since this tends to introduce more change (as well as more 
>>>>consistency), 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 may want to consider a conceptual and/or logical model 
>>>> 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 
>>>>the STIX idioms) would help providing guidance and test/validation 
>>>> 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 - 
>>>>>use 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 
>>>>>versus machines doing the processing. My guess is you can guess the 
>>>>>end of the
>>>>>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 
>>>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]