cti-stix — archive

Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding

From: Terry MacDonald
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 05:03:00 -0000

I disagree with Brett's statement that the only binding should be JSON. I believe that the only binding should be a binary protocol of some sort. We differ in our beliefs there, but we do both believe there should only be a single binding. One way to do it. The protocol discussion and testing stages should be very interesting when we go through the various options as a community. Cheers Terry MacDonald > On 30 Jul 2015 1:38 pm, "Eric Burger" < [email protected] > wrote: >> >> Fine with me. Anyone else? >> >> The counter argument might be “Why bother with UML?” I would offer it is because UML and OWL will let us see the actual relationships. What may be cool is to compile them into JSON bindings. That’s a <hint> research project. >> >> > On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jordan, Bret < [email protected] > wrote: >> > >> > On the community call there was a statement made that STIX will continue down the old path of UML and then OWL with bindings for XML and others. There needs to be a single binding, and it should be JSON. The only reason I wanted UML was to break our dependency on XML-isims to make it easier to do JSON. >> > >> > Bret >> > >> > Sent from my Commodore 64 >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > >>