Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
After giving this some more thought I do not actually think it will be useful
to add in the duplicate statement/relationship. We are going to have to give
this some more thought, I think either we want to update the metamodel to
clarify this ambiguity or we leave it alone.....from the point of view of pure
relationships between atomic entities there really is only one relationship,
just repeated multiple times from different contexts. In any case we can deal
with it after the demo, we just need to be aware that the memory store and the
triple store give different numbers for the criterion relationships right now.
This is the TODO: i put in the class:
NOTE: there is an issue in some cases where an Entity will be sent
* in containing duplicate relationships. At present only the first of the
* set of duplicates is added; from the context of the triple store this is
* the only useful behavior. The duplicate relationships make sense within
* the context of a larger XML document, but the abstraction of the
* metamodel removes that context, and therefore removes the usefulness of
* the duplicate relationships. An example of this is the
* "urn:scap-content:relationship:org.mitre.oval:criterion" Keyed
* relationship in an Oval definition. An oval def. may have multiple
* criterion relationships that are all equal (i.e. reference same test)
* except for the fact that they appear under distinct criteria operators;
* since the metamodel does not capture this extra context the relationships
* just appear to be exactly the same. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HANDLE THIS.
Original comment by Paul.Cic...@gmail.com
on 20 Mar 2011 at 7:05
Just updating based on in-person discussion. Decision was to change
memoryStore implementation to match what the triple store is doing. The
reasoning here is that when you only have the context provided by the current
metamodel the relationships are just purely duplicate. The extra context
provided by the OVAL criteria operators is removed at this level so we don't
need to capture it.
For what we are doing this is fine; we just need to know that there is a
relationship between the OVAL def and the state, and similarly for any generic
instance of this case.
Original comment by Paul.Cic...@gmail.com
on 20 Mar 2011 at 7:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Paul.Cic...@gmail.com
on 20 Mar 2011 at 7:05