Naked Classes

[uscholdm]

There is no information on the following classes:

• gist:Infrastructure
• gist:CategoryObject
• gist:MalwareAnalysis
• gist:Note
• gist:ObseveredData
• gist:Opinion
• gist:Procedure
• gist:Report
• gist:StixBundle
• gist:StixObject
• gist:Tactic
• gist:Weakness

There are other classes that have nothing but a label. E.g.

• gist:Vulnerabity (typo for gist:Vulnerability)

I suspect gist:CategoryObject should be deleted, as there already is gist:StixCategoryObject, per below.

gist:CategoryObject
	a owl:Class ;
	.


gist:StixCategoryObject
	a owl:Class ;
	rdfs:subClassOf gist:Category ;
	.

[rhohimer]

I agree with @uscholdm that CategoryObject should be deleted.

[rhohimer]

All of the classes, EXCEPT gist:CategoryObject, should remain and have the necessary data added. gist:CategoryObject should be deleted. I have deleted it in the issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch.

I will be pushing the issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch to the origin soon.

[brett-heffelfinger]

Should the issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch be merged before making additional changes for the remaining classes?

[rhohimer]

It probably should be merged first, but I don’t remember where I was at on the topic. I’ll do a git diff and see what the state is. Ryan Hohimer Journeyperson Ontologist Cell Phone: (509) 430-6890 ***@***.******@***.***> https://www.semanticarts.com<https://www.semanticarts.com/> ***@***.*** From: Brett Heffelfinger ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 12:37 PM To: semanticarts/gistCyber ***@***.***> Cc: Ryan Hohimer ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gistCyber] Naked Classes (Issue #78) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/158492846?s=20&v=4]brett-heffelfinger left a comment (semanticarts/gistCyber#78)<#78 (comment)> Should issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch be merged before making additional changes for the remaining classes? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#78 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACLF2VNASKUR55LQGFCP3CT3DMR4FAVCNFSM6AAAAAB5BWCBSOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSNZRGQ2DQNJWHA>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[rhohimer]

I did a git diff between develop and the issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch. I believe that there will be less conflict resolution if we delete the issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch and start over with it. There are too many changes that have been made in develop (good changes) that I don’t want to screw them up. Ryan Hohimer Journeyperson Ontologist Cell Phone: (509) 430-6890 ***@***.******@***.***> https://www.semanticarts.com<https://www.semanticarts.com/> ***@***.*** From: Brett Heffelfinger ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 12:37 PM To: semanticarts/gistCyber ***@***.***> Cc: Ryan Hohimer ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gistCyber] Naked Classes (Issue #78) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/158492846?s=20&v=4]brett-heffelfinger left a comment (semanticarts/gistCyber#78)<#78 (comment)> Should issue-75-defining-attr-categories branch be merged before making additional changes for the remaining classes? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#78 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACLF2VNASKUR55LQGFCP3CT3DMR4FAVCNFSM6AAAAAB5BWCBSOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSNZRGQ2DQNJWHA>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>