Re: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call

[+1] On Relationship Description for the reasons Rich Piazza mentioned. [+1] on dropping Name.

[+1] On providing "Version Comment" - it is very useful to humans to understand the basis for a revision.  For example a legitimate asset may have been fully compromised at some point and then mitigated.  A fairly substantive amount of narrative
 can describe the activities around this series of events.

Patrick Maroney

President

Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.

Desk: (856)983-0001

Cell: (609)841-5104

Email: 


_____________________________

From: Piazza, Rich <>

Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:26 AM

Subject: RE: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call

To: Jordan, Bret <>, Wunder, John A. <>

Cc: <>

One reason to have “description” is for named relationships that aren’t defined in the spec.  The “verb” might not fully describe the reason for the relationship.

 

From:

 [mailto:]On Behalf Of
Jordan, Bret

Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:45 AM

To: Wunder, John A. <>

Cc: 


Subject: Re: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call

 

 

3.  Maybe we need a new field on Relationship to capture this Verb...  If we do this, then Name and Description probably can be dropped as they will not
 be needed.  The only reason description is there, I believe, is because historically we added description to anything that had a name.