RE: [cti] Relationship object - name property

["Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org>]

Agreed. There's also type, definition_type, and definition properties on marking-definition objects, so it's not unprecedented (and actually rather consistent). 

Greg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of
> Wunder, John A.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:25 PM
> To: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>; Paul Patrick
> <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com>
> Cc: Kemp, David P <dpkemp@nsa.gov>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
> 
> Agreed. I think our reservations about having both “type” and
> “relationship_type” are probably very minor compared to the extra clarity
> this would bring.
> 
> 
> 
> From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Terry MacDonald
> <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM
> To: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com>
> Cc: "Kemp, David P" <dpkemp@nsa.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
> <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense to me to change the field from name to relationship-type,
> and would potentially help differentiate the SROs from the SDOs.
> 
> Cheers
> Terry MacDonald
> Cosive
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/08/2016 3:30 AM, "Paul Patrick" <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com
> <mailto:Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com> > wrote:
> 
> 	For a relationship, I agree with David that ‘relationship-type’ would
> be better than name
> 
> 
> 	Paul Patrick
> 
> 
> 	On 8/8/16, 11:17 AM, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org
> <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>  on behalf of Kemp, David P"
> <cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>  on behalf of
> dpkemp@nsa.gov <mailto:dpkemp@nsa.gov> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 	    "Threat Actor A" and "Threat Actor B" are vertex unique identifiers
> which (I assume) would be carried in the name field of those vertices.
> "related-to" is a class of edge but does not identify a specific edge, so I'd
> think that "label" or "relationship-type" is more appropriate than "name".
> 
> 	     Is an edge uniquely identified by anything other than two vertex
> IDs?   If not, edges would not have names.
> 
> 	    Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	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.