Encompassing RDF/OWL
We aim to build a layered stack of TypeDB databases for different cybersecurity protocols, like a pancake stack, each layer with a specific protocol for representing a particular aspect of the whole. Unified, they enable you to capture data and reason over the many aspects of the causal picture behind a successful threat.
Two of the standards we wish to embody in TypeQL, SPYDERISK and Mitre D3FEND are published as rdf/owl standards in turtle files, Our basic plan was to manually re-implement and improve on SPYDERISK in TypeQL, and to separately build a transpiler to dynamically convert the Mitre D3FEND rdf/owl into TypeQL, including converting the DL to functions.
Ideally, this transpiler could include some sort of test harness that could test the results of queries/reasoning to test they were identical. This is a long-term aim, because during the Grakn Warrior days, we had investigated deeply the porting of the Semantic Arts gists over, in a provable way.
Obviously, one only wants to transpile in the rare occasion when a standard is published this way, normally one would rearchitect it since:
- the representation could be then improved
- UUID's on entities and relations only, reducing IRI's
TLDR: It would be advantageous if TypeDB could encompass all of RDF/OWL capability, so it became a superset of capability. At this point, the decision for TypeDB becomes a requirement, since it is demonstrably better than/more than rdf/owl
My investigations have shown two types:
1. Schemas that can be described in a UML diagram, for example the SPYDERISK calculation of risk on assets. When one compares this diagram to the ontology represented at this link, its easy to see that TypeDB can 100% represent this. Classes are simple and have a single parent
2 Replies
2. Complex, multiparent structures representing the nested nature of systems, such as sensors, laptops, cloud applications etc.
For example, looking into some of the D3FEND class structure shows it to be highly intricate, for example looking into the Artifact/Digital Information Bearer/Database/Password Database/Password File entity shows the following multi-parent structure
yellow are class hierarchies, and the blue are properties (relations)
how could we build that in TypeDB?
If you want to check out the above diagram, simply:
1. Download the d3fend-protege.ttl file
2. Get a Protege account from Stanford, use the Web Version,, and open the downloaded file from 1.
Once you have open the file using the UI, then start looking through the classes tab, using the dependency view in the middle screen, some notes:
The salient question is how to represent this class hierarchy in TypeDB arises. According to some of the architects I spoke to, this is all setup in OWL DL