-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 140
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ontology anchor to metaschema #1220
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"$id": "https://schema.ocsf.io/references.schema.json", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
copy-paste error in the $id value.
"$id": "https://schema.ocsf.io/references.schema.json", | ||
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", | ||
"title": "Ontology Anchor", | ||
"description": "Concept definition and anchor to D3FEND cybersecurity ontology. This enables grounding of OCSF concepts into D3FEND Ontology classes, object properties, and data properties.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great to see that we are moving towards a stronger relation between D3FEND and OCSF.
My question here is, do we need a wholly separate metaschema attribute dedicated to represent the referential correlation between OCSF and D3FEND entities?
We recently added source
& references
as metaschema attributes to tie in non-OCSF-native entities together. Can we not utilize these instead? I am guessing, references
would be a better fit amongst the two.
The key concerns/questions I have with this is,
- A generic word such as
Ontology
being tied down to a specific entity like D3FEND. - Are all the keys you define within absolutely necessary to portray the relation? Would a URL (
references
) to the D3FEND entity not suffice? Thinking about the end-user, a schema viewer's experience. I would prefer keeping the "references" experience clean and consistent across the board.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried to explain the rationale for the approach here #1218
I was making the case that an anchor to the ontology project should be something unique versus generic references. Specifically, we'd like to establish technical compatibility between the two projects at a deep level. I am happy to discuss further as well.
Related Issue:
#1218
Description of changes:
Additional new metaschema ontology object and updates to other schema elements.