Agreed. I think our reservations about having both “type” and “relationship_type” are probably very minor compared to the extra clarity this would bring.
From:
<> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <>
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM
To: Paul Patrick <>
Cc: "Kemp, David P" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
That makes sense to me to change the field from name to relationship-type, and would potentially help differentiate the SROs from the SDOs.
Cheers
Terry MacDonald
Cosive
On 9/08/2016 3:30 AM, "Paul Patrick" <> wrote:
For a relationship, I agree with David that ‘relationship-type’ would be better than name
Paul Patrick
On 8/8/16, 11:17 AM, " on behalf of Kemp, David P" < on behalf of
> wrote:
"Threat Actor A" and "Threat Actor B" are vertex unique identifiers which (I assume) would be carried in the name field of those vertices. "related-to" is a class of edge but does not identify a specific edge, so I'd think that "label" or "relationship-type"
is more appropriate than "name".
Is an edge uniquely identified by anything other than two vertex IDs? If not, edges would not have names.
Dave
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
