[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
Unless anyone has any objections I’ll go through the documents tomorrow and make this update. On 8/10/16, 5:14 PM, "Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org> wrote: 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]