[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: RE: Use of the word "profile"
Toby.Considine@unc.edu writes: Ø
The Language and the (unwritten) Architecture should be treated
*together* as an abstract Platform Independent Model (PIM) and all things downstream as specific Profiles for specific technology and interaction choices (Platform Specific Models)(PSMs). Ø
As generally used, a PSM is a specific set of extensions to or constraints on a PIM, and therefore conformant to the PIM. Each PSM then is interoperable with any other PSM by a sort of transitory rule, as each can be transformed
into the PIM, and form the PIM into the other PSM. A PIM is never meant to be a specification in and of itself, although I have developed in the past a specific PSM that was as close to the PIM as possible, for use in integrating into other specifications. We do need to get that (unwritten) Architecture / “Philosophy” document written, as it will capture many of the ideas that you have articulated so well here. The motivation for creating JADN back in the Forum days was to have a Platform Independent way of defining the *information* needed by OpenC2 producers and consumers without getting tied to specific *data* structures. The
IETF uses the terms “Information Model” and “Data Model” (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3444,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/materials/slides-86-i2rs-3) to refer to PIMs and PSMs. We wanted to leverage CybOX (https://cyboxproject.github.io/)
objects that were defined in XML as targets in the new OpenC2 language that was being developed using JSON, while not tying OpenC2 inextricably to that JSON PSM the way STIX 1 is tied exclusively to XML and STIX 2 is tied exclusively to JSON. Dave |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]