Why don't we add IRS (Intrusion Response System) to the concept model?

[hjyoon93]

As defense mechanism usually can be classified into three types: IDS, IPS, IRS, I am thinking to add IRS to our concept model. Although all our three missions utilizing iMIA only include IDS and IPS and not include any IRS, I thought IRS can be added to our concept model to make our model include all the existing defense types as some other missions could always have IRS depending on their mission needs.

Also, from my understanding, it is not required that our three missions need to use all concepts in the model if some of them are not applicable. I just wanted to discuss the potential possibility of adding IRS as a sub type of DefenseMechanisms beforehand as this is supposed to be a concept model we (VT+GMU) all should agree upon.

[cardialfly]

(...) I am thinking to add IRS to our concept model. (...) I just wanted to discuss the potential possibility of adding IRS as a sub type of DefenseMechanisms beforehand (...)

I see no reason not to include IRS in the model. Please, go ahead and include it when you feel ready (you already have GMU's approval).

I presume the sooner is better, because we might be able to detect logical conflicts earlier (like the re-declaration issue we recently had) if you push the new concept model (the TQL) to the repository and I run the JUnit as smoke tests.

Also, from my understanding, it is not required that our three missions need to use all concepts in the model if some of them are not applicable.

Definitely. While the concept model should be generic enough to encompass the vision and scope of iMIA framework, our use cases don't have to exploit its entire space of possibilities when not applicable (unless the ADD tell us to come with some use case specifically to exercise the full scope of iMIA).

[hjyoon93]

I am very sure ADD won't care about not employing all concepts in our concept model. I will go ahead and add IRS by our meeting on Friday.

[hjyoon93]

changes to our concept model are as follows

1) Added IRS, subtype of DefenseMechanism 2) Changed all entities and relations to singular verb form so that it can be consistent with Dodaf, and we are speaking of concepts (i.e., Attack) here, not as countable verb (i.e., Attacks) 3) As there are two different mitigates relations, I distinguished them as "mitigatesAttack" and "mitigatesVulnerability"

I will run the Junit test and close the ticket.

[cardialfly]

The current version (commit https://github.com/cardialfly/DALNIM/commit/bd79997a2cbfce22a1b3f8f43c4a614eacffa483) seems to contain a mixture of DefenseMechanism (singular) and DefenseMechanisms (plural). Please, confirm if this is intended.

For instance, lines 18-20 and 194 seem to be using the plural form:

IPS sub DefenseMechanisms;
IDS sub DefenseMechanisms; 
IRS sub DefenseMechanisms; #new line; including IRS to CM

I will run the Junit test and close the ticket.

Thanks. Just reminding that the JUnit test of TypeDB2BPMN will only run if you have TypeDB server running on localhost (default port).

[hjyoon93]

Those lines were typos which are fixed. Please check new tql file for the concept model.

Thank for you for reminder. I will run the Junit test on local host.

[cardialfly]

I was able to run the JUnit tests (as smoke test for the new concept model). Therefore, I presume we can close this issue.