Bret,
This way of doing translations causes the same problems as the explicit versioning... relationships no longer point to the latest version of an object (as there may be two translations of the same object). Which object is the 'truth'? Which version of
the object is the one that everyone should connect their relationships to?
An alternative is to make all 'free-text' fields an array of text entries, and each text entry has a language attribute associated with it, so that the single object embeds multiple languages. But then this has its own problems, that there is no way for
third-parties to provide a translation of another companies data (maybe that's a good thing as it isn't officially published by them)?
Another alternative would be to actually create a Translation object. This would then be used only in a translations of other objects. This would mean there is only one 'real' version of an object, and the others are specifically translations, meaning
there is no confusion as to which one is the true assertion. In other words something like this:
[
{
"id": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"type": "report",
"lang": "en",
"created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
"title": "Hi, this text is in English",
"description": "So is this"
},
{
"id": "relationship--7f3fcd28-9a4b-480b-852b-77e7b33db237",
"type": "relationship",
"source_ref": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"target_ref": "translation--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"bidirectional": true,
"value": "translation-of"
},
{
"id": "translation--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"type": "translation",
{
"id": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"type": "report",
"lang": "en",
"created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
"title": "Hi, this text is in English",
"description": "So is this"
},
{
"id": "relationship--7f3fcd28-9a4b-480b-852b-77e7b33db237",
"type": "relationship",
"source_ref": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"target_ref": "translation--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"bidirectional": true,
"value": "translation-of"
},
{
"id": "translation--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"type": "translation",
"translated_type": "report",
"lang": "es",
"created_at": "2016-01-30T19:13:09Z",
"title": "Hola, este texto es español",
"description": "Asi es esto"
}
]
"lang": "es",
"created_at": "2016-01-30T19:13:09Z",
"title": "Hola, este texto es español",
"description": "Asi es esto"
}
]
Maybe that could work?
Cheers
Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Jordan, Bret
<bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> wrote:
Ryu,
Would something like this work for you? We have already defined this "translation-of" relationship. So it would be trivial to add some text to describe how it should work.
The first report is the "original" report... You will then see a second report at the bottom and a relationship object with a type of "translation-of" that links them together. Doing it this way will allow people other than the object creator to write a translation.
[
{
"id": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"type": "report",
"lang": "en",
"created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
"title": "Hi, this text is in English",
"description": "So is this"
},
{
"id": "relationship--7f3fcd28-9a4b-480b-852b-77e7b33db237",
"type": "relationship",
"source_ref": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
"target_ref": "report--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"bidirectional": true,
"value": "translation-of"
},
{
"id": "report--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
"type": "report",
"lang": "es",
"created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
"title": "Hola, este texto es español",
"description": "Asi es esto"
}
]
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTOBlue Coat SystemsPGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Apr 7, 2016, at 04:45, Masuoka, Ryusuke <masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
Hi, Bret,> 5) If the feature is not used in mass today,> then it probably does not warrant being an MVP item.> Not used == not used. I am sure between Soltra and EclecticIQ> they can give us some great metrics.I am a bit concerned with “used in mass today.”Yes, I am thinking about Internationalization.Without it, I cannot start accumulating CTI norimplementing CTI systems seriously.I am afraid that those who use a languageother than English as the primary language for his/her workare probably a minority on this TC.On the other hand, I cannot come up with very good and faircriteria as to which to pick as MVP items...Regards,RyuFrom: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:30 AM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti] MVP DiscussionAll,I have a few concerns with the current MVP items as discussed on the call today1) We need a statistically significant number of people to vote, before we can decide if it is in or out.2) I feel that some of the items in the list are not well understood, and thus we got mixed voting.3) I think this voting needs to be moved to a SurveyMonkey and we need to add the options of "abstain" and "I do not know what this means".4) Things that have 100% votes, should be in, and we should do those first.5) If the feature is not used in mass today, then it probably does not warrant being an MVP item. Not used == not used. I am sure between Soltra and EclecticIQ they can give us some great metrics.6) The current list represents a LOT of stuff. Keep in mind that it may take groups 2-5 years to full support everything in that list. That means in the mean time you will have a lot of products that are NOT compatible with each other. Can you imaging the conformance issues that this will cause? Keep in mind that even Soltra Edge does not fully support STIX 1.2 and how long ago did that come out.7) If the 2.0 MVP does not have everything that a group needs, say the USG. Then they can keep using STIX 1.2 until such a time that the 2.x tree does have what they need. I do not believe any of us are saying that people need to switch from STIX 1.2 to STIX 2.0 on day one.8) For orgs that are currently using STIX 1.2. You will probably not want to switch to the 2.x family until about 2.2 or 2.3, would be my finger to the wind guess.9) For orgs that are not yet doing anything with STIX yet, what is the bare minimum that you need to make a solution work.10) Things we do not understand well or that are not really used should be pushed to a 2.x release.
Thanks,BretBret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTOBlue Coat SystemsPGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."