On 02.10.2017 23:08:48, Bret Jordan wrote:
> I was one of the ones that pushed against this. At the time I could
> not see the value of having observable objects be first order
> citizens. I admit that. But I am really beginning to question it. So
> much so, that I think we may have gotten it wrong.
>
Hi, Bret -
The points you raise with regard to STIX Observed Data and SCO were
already examined at great length during the Great Arglebargle Debate
of 2016. In due course of time, the TC reached consensus on the
current approach and work progressed from there.
Whether or not the approach we took was the *ideal* technical solution
is irrelevant. STIX 2.0 went through multiple CSDs (including multiple
public comment periods during which concerns were raised and addressed
by the community), then we progressed to a CS via a series of TC-wide
ballots.
The ship has sailed, Bret. We're not going to rip out and redo Parts
3-5. The 2.0 specification is final and people are now busily
implementing it.
We have many pressing matters pertaining to the evolution of STIX 2.1
(and beyond) demanding our collective attention and effort. Let's keep
our focus on moving forward as a community.
--
Cheers,
Trey
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Director of Standards Development, New Context
gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F 018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead." --RFC 1925