We need to make sure it's very clear where the relationship object starts and ends. If I am not forced to use the relationship object for a sighting relationship, then I go back to supporting an atomic sighting object.
Aharon
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: Wunder, John A. <>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:07:08 PM
To: Aharon Chernin
Cc: Jordan, Bret; Davidson II, Mark S;
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] STIX 2.0 - Sightings object
Are you actually forced to use the relationship object to have sighting work there? I see that as a separate use case from relationships, and in cases like this we can still have the target_id field directly there without the need for a new object.
Same thing for an indicator pattern, for example.
While those are references between top-level constructs they seem different than the normal type of relationships we’ve been discussing.
John
BTW: Any thoughts on setting up a slack channel for STIX dev discussions? Sometimes I think that would be more conducive to these questions than e-mail.
On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Aharon Chernin <
> wrote:
Bret, I almost always prefer atomic objects.
If we do both a relationship object and a Sightings atomic object together, it just seems... well weird.... (not very scientific I know)
Example Sightings Object -
ID: Sighting GUID
Marking: Sighting TLP
Producer: Who made the sighting
Timestamp:
?Target_ID: Replaced by Relationship Object
Now I am going to be forced to use the relationship object to make the Sighting work. I am also going to be forced to make a potentially large number of new Sighting Objects (since there is a timestamp). Also, a sighting by itself, without the looking
into the Relationship object is kind of useless.
We can eliminate this extra complexity by eliminating the atomic Sightings object and replacing it with a relationship type.
Just debating <OutlookEmoji-
