[Oslc-Automation] PmScenarioCoverageReport scenario questions

[John Arwe]

[3] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/PmScenarioCoverageReport

Q3.1: Monitoring is only a part of the pre-conditions here.  Also 
pre-supposed is discovery (not a domain that I'm aware of, unless you mean 
Asset Mgmt).  Was it the intent to address this entire scenario in the 
Perf Mon wg, or only the monitoring subset of it (seems more likely)? This 
seems like a pretty good fit for the new Reconciliation wg.

Q3.2: If the intent is to solve only the monitoring-relevant subset in 
Perf Mon: I see a new (versus other scenarios) potential requirement 
elicited to define a predicate to link -to- (not from) a performance 
monitoring record.  I'm hesitant to go down that path; I'd lean toward 
letting the domain defining the record that contains the link define the 
predicate name(s) to use.  What was the intent here?

Q3.3: There is another requirement called out more explicitly here but I 
think baked into several of the other scenarios implicitly: performance 
data does not exist in isolation, it describes some other "observable" 
resource that is conceptually at least separate from the observed 
performance data.  As we often talk about it, it's performance data 
"about" X, and probably (although often implicitly) at some point in time. 
 That link certainly seems to make sense for Perf Mon to define.  I'm not 
so sure Perf Mon would be capable to defining all the "X"s in the universe 
though, so the link's range would seem to be open.  Was that the intent?


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120612/e2629efa/attachment-0003.html>