Adding the STIX 2.1 Processor Architectures to vocabs.ttl

[brett-heffelfinger]

Closes #43

Added gist:ProcessorArchitecture and associated processor architectures from STIX 2.1 to vocabs.ttl.

Specific question for review: On line 1756 and 1791, for ia64 and x8664, should there be a hyphen in the URI like ia-64 and x86-64 instead?

[rhohimer]

Most of these vocabularies in gistCyber are in support of the STIX 2.1 vocabularies. The STIX 2.1 approach is to tag things with a string. In the SPARQL-Anything template used to ingest STIX 2.1 JSON objects we use the value of the tag to type the instances being ingested. This implementation does support ingesting in this way, because the IRI is created using the exact tag.

You ( @brett-heffelfinger ) have used the skos:prefLabel to represent a more humanly readable and pleasant form. Which is a good convention.

A problem we will have in the future comes when we want to WRITE out STIX 2.1 JSON. It is convenient to have the tag value ready at hand. I set the skos:prefLabel to the exact tag value. Some discussion and decision should be made about this. @uscholdm has been guiding me on this topic. I think we should request his wisdom.

It could be that we use skos:altLabel or a new predicate to capture the tag value on these STIX concepts with vocabulary tags.

[brett-heffelfinger]

A problem we will have in the future comes when we want to WRITE out STIX 2.1 JSON. It is convenient to have the tag value ready at hand. I set the skos:prefLabel to the exact tag value. Some discussion and decision should be made about this. @uscholdm has been guiding me on this topic. I think we should request his wisdom.

It could be that we use skos:altLabel or a new predicate to capture the tag value on these STIX concepts with vocabulary tags.

Would it make sense to have a proper property instead of an altLabel, in the potential event of having multiple altLabels for a particular vocab element? Something like gist:STIX_JSON_Tag or whatever the proper convention would be?

[rhohimer]

I like your thinking. gist:stix-term ? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

…

________________________________ From: Brett Heffelfinger ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 6:13:44 AM To: semanticarts/gistCyber ***@***.***> Cc: Ryan Hohimer ***@***.***>; Review requested ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gistCyber] Adding the STIX 2.1 Processor Architectures to vocabs.ttl (PR #86) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/158492846?s=20&v=4]brett-heffelfinger left a comment (semanticarts/gistCyber#86)<#86 (comment)> A problem we will have in the future comes when we want to WRITE out STIX 2.1 JSON. It is convenient to have the tag value ready at hand. I set the skos:prefLabel to the exact tag value. Some discussion and decision should be made about this. @uscholdm<https://github.com/uscholdm> has been guiding me on this topic. I think we should request his wisdom. It could be that we use skos:altLabel or a new predicate to capture the tag value on these STIX concepts with vocabulary tags. Would it make sense to have a proper property instead of an altLabel, in the potential event of having multiple altLabels for a particular vocab element? Something like gist:STIX_JSON_Tag or whatever the proper convention would be? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#86 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACLF2VN54LD444ZO3K5L4UD3ARQIRAVCNFSM6AAAAAB5ZUKOK2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSMJSGQ3TAOBVG4>. You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[brett-heffelfinger]

Sure, gist:stix-term sounds good. I'll implement it for this set of properties, then we can decide if we like how it looks for the rest.