[Oslc-pm] Document guidance involving resources from crtv vocabulary/Reconciliation workgroup
John Arwe
johnarwe at us.ibm.com
Tue Feb 19 18:15:11 EST 2013
> handle this
Unclear what you would consider handling it.
We have a similar situation (normative dependency on EMS vocabulary not
used in any finalized spec). We're in the process of working out the
process with Core on EMS, meeting later this week. Odds are we should use
a "very similar" process here. There are differences (the dependency on
crtv is soft not hard as it was with EMS).
Is Reconciliation defining a resource shape for rdfs:Container (or does it
have a resource definition table for same, which is equivalent) where
these would be naturally listed as "sub-types"? Or is there no need for
reconciling rdfs:Container 's and so those terms are vocabulary non grata?
Best Regards, John
Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
From: Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
To: oslc-pm at open-services.net,
Date: 02/19/2013 03:29 PM
Subject: [Oslc-pm] Document guidance involving resources from crtv
vocabulary/Reconciliation workgroup
Sent by: "Oslc-Pm" <oslc-pm-bounces at open-services.net>
Hi all,
Janet Andersen and I have been discussing how to represent metrics for
resource pools ( e.g. pools of database connections ).
We ended up using the following :
Resource pool categories
===================
OSLC services providers can represent pools of shared resources (e.g. a
set of shared database connections) using the rdfs:Container resource
definition. To help in categorizing these pools, the following RDFS
classes are defined
URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/crtv#ThreadPool a set of
shared threads
http://open-services.net/ns/crtv#DatabasePool a set of
shared database connections
http://open-services.net/ns/crtv#J2CConnectorPool a set of shared
J2C connections
My question is where do we put this guidance ? We're using resources from
http://open-services.net/ns/crtv# which should mean that we document
in the Reconciliation workgroup. But, the applicable scenario is from Perf
Mon and the issue does not fall in the Reconciliation wg scope.
I'm proposing that we handle this either in the Perf Mon spec or in a Perf
Mon supporting document.
Thanks ! T
Tuan Dang
Tivoli OSLC governance, OSLC Reconciliation workgroup lead, Tivoli Common
Data Model
Internet: tdang at us.ibm.com
phone: (919) 224-1242 T/L 687-1242
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Pm mailing list
Oslc-Pm at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-pm_open-services.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-pm_open-services.net/attachments/20130219/9f33cc80/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Oslc-Pm
mailing list