Right now we have the Malware_Subject, which is really a characterization of a malware instance. Perhaps we should consider adding a Malware_Family Object, which can serve as a meta class that can reference the Malware_Subjects that are part of a malware family?
In MalwareFamilyType, should the field capture Malware Subjects (maecPackage:MalwareSubjectReferenceType) or Objects (maecCore:ObjectReferenceType)?
For now, we’ve chosen Malware Subjects.
There may be some objects, which are not malware subjects, which we would want to associate with a particular malware family.
So that there is only one way to associate Malware Subjects with a Malware Family, we have NOT defined a Malware_Family field in MalwareSubjectType.
This prevents defining relationships in two directions, which we’re trying to get away from in 5.0.
With Relationships being pairwise, it would be cumbersome to link multiple Malware Subjects (or Objects) to a Malware Family because multiple Relationships would need to be defined (i.e., capturing through the Malware Family is more efficient).
We could remove the Malware_Subject field from MalwareFamilyType and associate malware subjects (and/or objects) and malware families using a Collection.
We shouldn’t use both the Malware Subject field in MalwareFamilyType and Collections (there shouldn't be two ways to specify family members).
If we don’t use Collections, we should remove “same malware family” from maecPackage:CollectionAssociateTypeEnum.
Right now we have the Malware_Subject, which is really a characterization of a malware instance. Perhaps we should consider adding a Malware_Family Object, which can serve as a meta class that can reference the Malware_Subjects that are part of a malware family?