--
JulianneBielski - 29 Aug 2012
Agenda
Implementation underway and getting feedback; feeling pressure to close spec so that development can be stabilized and all remaining work known and finite.
Review Sample RDF.xml representing a Computer System with a performance monitoring record
Questions:
- Why do we call
PerformanceMonitoringRecord? PerformanceMonitoringRecord? instead of
PerformanceMonitoringResource? ?
- We seem to be putting classes and properties in both the Specification document and the vocabulary document (
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon #). What is
the difference? And, do we need to document everything as formal rdfs? For example, imagine this was one of the Performance Monitoring properties:
<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title">
<rdfs:labelxml:lang="en-US">Title</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:commentxml:lang="en-US">A name given to the resource.</rdfs:comment>
<dc:descriptionxml:lang="en-US">Typically, a Title will be a name by which the
resource is formally known.</dc:description>
<rdfs:isDefinedByrdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
<dcterms:issued>1999-07-02</dcterms:issued>
</rdf:Property>
- Where should pm:process, pm:monitoringAgent be documented? They're used as a way of relating a computer's processes and agents to classes of Processes and Agents. Is that the standard way of accomplishing this?
- Currently we're relating processes, disks, and monitoring agents to
ComputerSystems? via repeated properties with 'resource' attributes pointing to local URIs. Is there a better way of representing these relationships if we only care about disks, processes, and agents as they pertain to targets of
ComputerSystem? metrics?
- Should we use foaf:Agent class?
- How do we properly use string values and enumerated types as metric values, for example to denote Availability Status?
Actions
Julie to talk to Janet re: ordering of monitoring agents in computer system resource
Update Availability Status definition
Ping David Harrison, moving to convergence
Make updates based on today's discussion (Julie, John)