[Verse 1]
In the world of schemas, two paths divide
XML Schema on the STIG side
XCCDF and OVAL, defined in XSD
While OSCAL takes a different key
Metaschema generates what you need
Both XSD and JSON Schema freed
[Chorus]
Schema showdown, pick your way
XML only versus three-format play
STIG says XSD, one path to go
OSCAL's metaschema lets formats flow
JSON, XML, YAML too
Lossless conversion sees you through
[Verse 2]
Serialization tells the tale
STIG keeps XML without fail
But OSCAL breaks the single chain
JSON, XML, YAML domain
Convert between them, nothing lost
Flexibility without the cost
[Chorus]
Schema showdown, pick your way
XML only versus three-format play
STIG says XSD, one path to go
OSCAL's metaschema lets formats flow
JSON, XML, YAML too
Lossless conversion sees you through
[Verse 3]
Validation tools help you check
OpenSCAP keeps STIG in spec
xmllint for the XML way
OSCAL CLI starts your day
JSON validators join the game
Any schema tool can stake its claim
[Bridge]
Extensibility sets them apart
STIG's tailoring files, limited start
OSCAL opens every door
Properties, annotations, links and more
Back-matter gives you room to grow
Rich extensions steal the show
[Verse 4]
Identifiers mark the trail
Rule IDs where STIGs prevail
CCIs and OVAL definitions too
OSCAL takes a different view
UUIDs everywhere you see
RFC four-one-two-two, version three
[Chorus]
Schema showdown, pick your way
XML only versus three-format play
STIG says XSD, one path to go
OSCAL's metaschema lets formats flow
JSON, XML, YAML too
Lossless conversion sees you through
[Verse 5]
Versioning tracks the change
STIG benchmarks in their range
V-two-R-one, release by name
OSCAL plays a different game
Root UUID shifts with every edit
Metadata keeps the history credited
[Outro]
From XML Schema to metaschema's might
Choose your format, choose your flight
STIG or OSCAL, now you know
How their schemas help them grow