Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property

["Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>]

Unless anyone has any objections I’ll go through the documents tomorrow and make this update.

On 8/10/16, 5:14 PM, "Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org> wrote:

    Agreed. There's also type, definition_type, and definition properties on marking-definition objects, so it's not unprecedented (and actually rather consistent). 
    
    Greg
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of
    > Wunder, John A.
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:25 PM
    > To: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>; Paul Patrick
    > <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com>
    > Cc: Kemp, David P <dpkemp@nsa.gov>; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
    > Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
    > 
    > 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: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Terry MacDonald
    > <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
    > Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM
    > To: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com>
    > Cc: "Kemp, David P" <dpkemp@nsa.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
    > <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    > 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" <Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com
    > <mailto:Paul.Patrick@fireeye.com> > 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, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org
    > <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>  on behalf of Kemp, David P"
    > <cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>  on behalf of
    > dpkemp@nsa.gov <mailto:dpkemp@nsa.gov> > 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.