-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Create, organize, and document the Semantic Extension Mechanism to be used in the TAC Ontology. #3
Comments
@Vasileios-Mavroeidis I have create a subdirectory in stix-semex and added the security-playbook.owl file. |
Although I added the security-playbook.owl file, I have not imported it into stix-semex.owl !!! Until this is done the ontology will not be visible. |
I did add the import of the security-playbook ontology into the stix-semex ontology. My personal opinion is that it should be a subclass of CourseOfAction. This has yet to be termined. |
As we discussed. A security playbook is a subclass of course of action. |
The image in the above comment shows that the new objects associated with the Incident object should be handled in the same way that the SecurityPlaybook class was handled. We know it is not handled the same because of the bold font on the new objects. A new Issue should be created specifically for the creation of the Incident extension project. |
Contributors should have conventions to follow when them are submitting ontology files that extend existing concepts.
Discussions have been held that lean toward keeping semantic extensions in a directory structure under the stix-semex folder.
This proposed structure is new, and did not exist prior. Some legacy extensions will need to be modified to conform to the new conventions. Example extensions:
A new branch is being created to address the naming conventions to be used. issue-003-extensions
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: