[EPIC] Review all models, address feedback, and make improvements

[david-waltermire]

User Story:

As an OSCAL developer, I need to address all received feedback on the OSCAL models and have confidence that the models are stable for the Milestone 3 release.

Goals:

This issue is tracking a series of issues dealing with review of the OSCAL models and making changes to the models based on the feedback we have recieved from the OSCAL community.

These issues are:

• Metadata and back matter models:
  • Add support for document revision histories #587 Add support for document revision histories
  • What are the semantics of multiple rlink / base64 elements within a resource? #581 What are the semantics of multiple rlink / base64 elements within a resource?
  • Better defined linking semantics regarding resources #567 Better define linking semantics regarding resources
  • Clarify published / version vs last-modified in metadata #552 Clarify published / version vs last-modified in metadata
  • Document Label Marking #600 Document Label Marking
  • Need Location not tied to Person/Org #611 Need Location Not Tied to Person/Org
  • Merge Citation with Resource in Back Matter #612 Merge Citation With Resource in Back Matter
• Catalog and Profile:
  • Should method and status prop names be part of control? #541 Should method and status prop names be part of control?
• System Security Plan:
  • Rename set-param in SSP model #568 Rename set-param in SSP model
  • SSP Leveraged Authorizations @name Attribute #535 SSP Leveraged Authorizations @name Attribute (not only about leveraged-authorization)
  • OSCAL SSP schema review against an actual SSP Template #498 [EPIC] OSCAL SSP schema review against an actual SSP Template
  • SSP Schema Validation #333 SSP Schema validation
• Component:
  • Support parameters in components #555 Support parameters in components
  • Modeling of Related Parameters #563 Modeling of Related Parameter
• All models:
  • Valid OSCAL File Fragments #590 Select and allow valid OSCAL file fragments
  • Review in-xml wrapper settings on (all) markup-multiline elements #528 @in-xml settings
  • Data types for control id and profile call control-id don't match  #551 Data types for control id and profile call control-id don't match
  • Add guidance on newlines in tables #547 Add guidance on newlines in tables
  • Add support for definition list #540 Add support for definition list
  • Same Field/Flag Names Used in Different Context #307 Same Field/flag names used in different context (?)

This also relates to the epic #257.

Once this work is completed we need to do a top-to-bottom review of all the models (#478) to make sure all models are consistent, well-defined, and all identifiable bugs are addressed.

Dependencies:

None

Acceptance Criteria

• All OSCAL website and readme documentation affected by the changes in this issue have been updated. Changes to the OSCAL website can be made in the docs/content directory of your branch.
• A Pull Request (PR) is submitted that fully addresses the goals of this User Story. This issue is referenced in the PR.
• The CI-CD build process runs without any reported errors on the PR. This can be confirmed by reviewing that all checks have passed in the PR.

[david-waltermire]

PR #607 addressed #528.

[david-waltermire]

PR #608 addresses #551.

[david-waltermire]

PR #609 addresses #568.

[david-waltermire]

PR #619 addresses #552, #581, #587, #611, #612. This also partially addresses #498.

[brian-ruf]

30-Jan-2020 Status

Continue to work issues in this epic. Made changes to several models in metaschema; however, data issues and PR #614 need to be addressed before those issues can be closed. See @david-waltermire-nist comment above.

[david-waltermire]

PR #619 also addresses issues #535, #541 and #600.

[david-waltermire]

The remaining work has either been pushed to a different release or has a dedicated issue. Closing.