Implement the STIX 2.1 Opinion Enumeration vocabulary

[rhohimer]

[uscholdm]

@rhohimer
I still think that the class name should be Opinion. gist:_Opinion_agree is an opinion, it is not an opinion enumeration. The class Opinion should be an OWL enumerated class with exactly 5 instances which says that no more instances are allowed. That would look something like this:

gist:Opinion
        a owl:Class ;
        rdfs:subClassOf gist:StixCategoryObject ;
        owl:equivalentClass
        [ rdf:type owl:Class ;
        owl:oneOf(gist:_Opinion_agree
                gist:_Opinion_disagree
                gist:_Opinion_neutral
                gist:_Opinion_strongly-agree
                gist:_Opinion_strongly-disagree
        doe:_exempt) ] ;
        skos:definition "A category indicating a degree of agreement."^^xsd:string ;
        skos:note """STIX 2.1 description:
This enumeration captures a degree of agreement with the information in a STIX Object. It is an ordered enumeration, with the earlier terms representing disagreement, the middle term neutral, and the later terms representing agreement."""^^xsd:string ;
        skos:prefLabel "Opinion Enumeration"^^xsd:string ;
        .
```

[uscholdm]

@rhohimer Why not use gist:sequence to order the opinions? Like this:

gist:_Opinion_agree
        a gist:OpinionEnumeration ;
        skos:definition "STIX 2.1 description:
The creator agrees with the information and believes that it is accurate and correct."^^xsd:string ;
        skos:prefLabel "agree"^^xsd:string ;
        gist:sequence "4"^^xsd:integer ;
        .

instead of

gist:_OpinionEnumeration_agree
	a gist:OpinionEnumeration ;
	skos:definition """STIX 2.1 description:
The creator agrees with the information and believes that it is accurate and correct.

 

This MAY be considered equivalent to a 4 in a numeric scale."""^^xsd:string ;
	skos:prefLabel "agree"^^xsd:string ;
	.

[rhohimer]

There is already an Opinion class (With NO definition or label, so no way for you to know what it is) that is for capturing a stated opinion. The OpinionEnumeration is a class to capture the degree of agreement with the stated opinion. "DegreeOfAgreement" would be a better class name in my opinion.

This is another of the STIX vocabularies that is called an enumeration, meaning it is not an "open" vocabulary. The author of a STIX document must use one of the five terms.

using Sequence would be a good idea.

[rhohimer]

I believe the intent was to allow readers of an opinion, as apposed to the author of the opinion, to declare their level of agreement with the opinion. Practitioners using STIX have not used these concepts yet to my knowledge. Analysts have very different interpretations of things. An tend to form biases toward analysts they trust or tend to agree with. Ryan Hohimer Journeyperson Ontologist Cell Phone: (509) 430-6890 ***@***.******@***.***> https://www.semanticarts.com<https://www.semanticarts.com/> ***@***.*** From: Michael Uschold ***@***.***> Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 10:44 AM To: semanticarts/gistCyber ***@***.***> Cc: Ryan Hohimer ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gistCyber] Implement the STIX 2.1 Opinion Enumeration vocabulary (Issue #41) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10777545?s=20&v=4]uscholdm left a comment (semanticarts/gistCyber#41)<#41 (comment)> @rhohimer<https://github.com/rhohimer> I still think that the class name should be Opinion. gist:_Opinion_agree is an opinion, it is not an opinion enumeration. The class Opinion should be an OWL enumerated class with exactly 5 instances which says that no more instances are allowed. That would look something like this: gist:Opinion a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf gist:StixCategoryObject ; owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Class ; owl:oneOf(gist:_Opinion_agree gist:_Opinion_disagree gist:_Opinion_neutral gist:_Opinion_strongly-agree gist:_Opinion_strongly-disagree doe:_exempt) ] ; skos:definition "A category indicating a degree of agreement."^^xsd:string ; skos:note """STIX 2.1 description: This enumeration captures a degree of agreement with the information in a STIX Object. It is an ordered enumeration, with the earlier terms representing disagreement, the middle term neutral, and the later terms representing agreement."""^^xsd:string ; skos:prefLabel "Opinion Enumeration"^^xsd:string ; . ``` — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#41 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACLF2VKURTNYZXXG5DXVZBD25OJV5AVCNFSM6AAAAAB4BBP3G6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQNRTG43TAMBQG4>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[uscholdm]

This is another of the STIX vocabularies that is called an enumeration, meaning it is not an "open" vocabulary. The author of a STIX document must use one of the five terms.

Got it. DegreeOfAgreement would good, or AgreementLevel, which is a bit shorter.

BTW, this is the only class with 'Enumeration' in the class name, so the other ones have already had a name change, so we could do so with OpinionEnumeration, with a skos:note explaining the original STIX name.

[uscholdm]

using Sequence would be a good idea.

Should this be a separate issue so we don't lose track of it?

[rhohimer]

I think it would be good to call it out in a separate issue. I have a lot of irons in this fire that we don't want to lose track of. Ryan Hohimer Journeyperson Ontologist Cell Phone: (509) 430-6890 ***@***.******@***.***> https://www.semanticarts.com<https://www.semanticarts.com/> ***@***.*** From: Michael Uschold ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gistCyber ***@***.***> Cc: Ryan Hohimer ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gistCyber] Implement the STIX 2.1 Opinion Enumeration vocabulary (Issue #41) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10777545?s=20&v=4]uscholdm left a comment (semanticarts/gistCyber#41)<#41 (comment)> using Sequence would be a good idea. Should this be a separate issue so we don't lose track of it? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#41 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACLF2VKNWIXQS6EFKYRWN3T26DSNLAVCNFSM6AAAAAB4BBP3G6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQNZTGYYDONJQGM>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>