Performance Monitoring wiki http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring Latest changes for the OSLC Performance Monitoring wiki en webmaster@open-services.net webmaster@open-services.net (Lee Reamsnyder) Copyright 2018 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:28:04 EDT <![CDATA[OSLC Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/#When:1391186621 OSLC_logo.png

Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration
Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0

This Version

Latest Version

Previous Version

  • This is the first version.

Authors

Contributors

Table of Contents

[TOC]

Notation and Conventions

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. Domain name examples use RFC2606.

Introduction

(this section is informative)

This specification builds on the OSLC Core Specification to define the resources and operations supported by an Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) Performance Monitoring provider. This version of the specification has version 2.0 to indicate that it is an OSLC Core 2.0 compliant specification.

Performance Monitoring resources define records whose content is most useful in the testing and operational stages of the software development, test, and deployment lifecycle. They represent individual resources as well as their relationships to other resources and to other linked resources outside of the Performance Monitoring domain. The intent of this specification is to define the set of HTTP-based RESTful interfaces in terms of HTTP methods: GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, HTTP response codes, MIME type handling and resource formats. The capabilities of the interface definitions are driven by key integration scenarios and therefore do not represent a complete set of operations on resources or resource types. The resource formats and operations may not exactly match the native models supported by existing implementations, but are intended to be compatible with them.

Performance Monitoring, as referenced in this specification, refers to the collection of data about Information Technology (IT) systems such as servers, workstations, services, and transactions to assess their operational health and enable proactive manual human intervention before emerging problems escalate into widespread degradation or outages. See the [[Performance Monitoring Scenarios]] page for several specific examples.

Terminology

Service Provider - an implementation of the OSLC Performance Monitoring specification as a server. OSLC Performance Monitoring clients consume these services.

Performance Monitoring Record - Defines the unit of information made available by a Performance Monitoring service provider. The information could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.

Monitored resource - An entity such as a software server or computer system that is monitored by a software agent to ensure its performance and availability. In this specification when we use the word ‘resource’ to mean a monitored resource rather than an OSLC resource, we try to qualify the word to make our intent clear.

Base Requirements

Compliance

This specification is based on OSLC Core Specification. OSLC Performance Monitoring consumers and service providers MUST be compliant with both the core specification and this Performance Monitoring specification, and SHOULD follow all the guidelines and recommendations in both these specifications.

The following table summarizes the requirements from OSLC Core Specification as well as some (but not all) additional requirements specific to Performance Monitoring. See the full content of the Performance Monitoring specification for all requirements. Note that this specification further restricts some of the requirements for OSLC Core Specification as noted in the Origin column of the compliance table. See further sections in this specification or the OSLC Core Specification to get further details on each of these requirements.

Any consumer or service provider behaviors are allowed unless explicitly prohibited by this or dependent specifications; conditional permissive requirements, especially those qualified with “MAY”, are implicitly covered by the preceding clause. While technically redundant in light of that broad permission, OSLC specifications do still make explicit MAY-qualified statements in cases where the editors believe doing so is likely to add clarity.

Requirements on OSLC Consumers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC clients MUST preserve unknown content

Requirements on OSLC Service Providers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY ignore unknown content
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST return an error code if recognized content is invalid.
Resource Operations MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST support resource operations via standard HTTP operations
Resource Paging MAY Core OSLC services MAY provide paging for resources
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP GET requests for retrieval of a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP PUT requests for updating a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Service Provider Resources MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog resource
Service Provider Resources MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST provide a Service Provider resource
Creation Factories MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide creation factories to enable resource creation via HTTP POST
Query Capabilities SHOULD1 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide query capabilities to enable clients to query for resources
Query Syntax MUST2 Perf Mon, Core If a service provider supports a OSLC query capability, its query capabilities MUST support the OSLC Core Query Syntax
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD allow clients to discover, via their service provider resources, any Delegated UI Dialogs they offer.
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource creation
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource selection
UI Preview SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD offer UI previews for resources that may be referenced by other resources
HTTP Basic Authentication MAY Core OSLC Services MAY support Basic Auth
HTTP Basic Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD support Basic Auth only over HTTPS
OAuth Authentication MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support OAuth
OAuth Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC service providers that support OAuth SHOULD allow clients to discover the required OAuth URLs via their service provider resource
Error Responses MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide error responses using Core-defined error formats
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST offer an RDF/XML representation for HTTP GET responses
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations on PUT requests.
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core RDF/XML representations on POST requests whose semantic intent is to create a new resource instance.
XML Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a XML representation for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for XML.
JSON Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide JSON representations for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for JSON
HTML Representations SHOULD3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide HTML representations for HTTP GET requests
  • 1The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY provide Query Capabilities. This specification strengthens the requirement.
  • 2The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY support the OSLC Query Syntax. This specification makes OSLC Query Syntax support a MUST requirement for service providers providing query capabilities.
  • 3Support for all common HTTP methods is not required for all resources defined by this specification. See the HTTP Method support table for details.

Specification Versioning

See OSLC Core Specification Versioning section.

Namespaces

Defined

OSLC Performance Monitoring defines the namespace shown in the table below. This namespace URI and prefix are used to designate the resources and their properties defined in this specification.

Use of the suggested prefix is RECOMMENDED, because doing so aids debugging and other situations where humans read the data.

Suggested namespace prefix Namespace URI
pm http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#

Re-used from other specifications

In addition to the namespace URIs and namespace prefixes defined in the OSLC Core specification, OSLC Performance Monitoring also re-uses vocabulary terms from other namespaces. The namespace prefixes in the table below are used in this specification, and match the recommendations made by the specification that defines each.

Namespace prefix used Namespace URI Usage
ems http://open-services.net/ns/ems# Vocabulary is required for Performance Monitoring providers to expose metrics. Defined in the OSLC Estimation and Measurement domain.
crtv http://open-services.net/ns/crtv# Vocabulary is expected to be commonly used by Performance Monitoring providers, but is not required. Defined in the OSLC Reconciliation domain.

Resource Formats

In addition to the requirements for OSLC Defined Resource Representations, this section outlines further refinements and restrictions.

See HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

For HTTP GET requests on all OSLC Performance Monitoring and OSLC Core defined resource types,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML representations. If provided, the RDF/XML representation SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance for RDF/XML.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY provide XML and JSON representations. The XML and JSON representations SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting XML SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support an [X]HTML representation and a user interface (UI) preview as defined by UI Preview Guidance

For HTTP PUT/POST request formats for Performance Monitoring resources,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations and MAY accept XML representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. If XML is accepted, Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY accept XML and JSON representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting XML or JSON SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.

For HTTP GET response formats for Query requests,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML and MAY provide JSON, XML, and Atom Syndication Format XML.

When Performance Monitoring Consumers request:

  • application/rdf+xml Performance Monitoring Providers MUST respond with RDF/XML representation without restrictions.
  • application/xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with OSLC-defined abbreviated XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • application/atom+xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with Atom Syndication Format XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • If supported, the Atom Syndication Format XML representation SHOULD use RDF/XML representation without restrictions for the atom:content entries representing the resource representations.

Authentication

See OSLC Core Authentication section. This specification puts no additional constraints on authentication.

Error Responses

See OSLC Core Error Responses section. This specification puts no additional constraints on error responses.

Pagination

Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support pagination of query results and MAY support pagination of a single resource’s properties as defined by the OSLC Core Specification.

Labels for Relationships

Relationships to other resources are represented as properties whose values are the URI of the object or target resource. When a relationship property is to be presented in a user interface, it may be helpful to provide an informative and useful textual label for that relationship instance. (This in addition to the relationship property URI and the object resource URI, which are also candidates for presentation to a user.) OSLC Core Links Guidance allows OSLC providers to support a dcterms:title link property in resource representations, using the anchor approach (reification), but this specification discourages its use (providers SHOULD NOT use it, and consumers SHOULD NOT depend on it). At the time this specification was written, the W3C RDF working group was on a path to remove reification from the next version of RDF, and it was noted that reification never was normatively defined even in the RDF/XML syntax W3C Recommendation, where it occurs informatively.

Resource Definitions

A list of properties is defined for each type of resource. Most of these properties are identified in OSLC Core Appendix A: Common Properties. Any exceptions are noted. Relationship properties refer to other resources. These resources MAY be any resource; that is, they MAY or MAY NOT be in any OSLC domain, including Performance Monitoring. Likewise, they MAY or MAY NOT be HTTP or RDF resources.

The diagram below shows an example of one way that a Performance Monitoring Record resource may relate to the resources it describes. With this option, the Performance Monitoring record uses the isPartOf predicate to refer to the monitored resource its describing.

Another option is described near the bottom of this specification in the section entitled [[Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines]].

[[Image:pm_domain8.JPG]]

For all resource types defined in this specification, all required properties (those defined with an occurrence of exactly-one or one-or-many) MUST exist for each resource and MUST be provided when requested. All other properties are optional, and might not exist on some or any resources; those that do not exist will not be present in the returned representation even if requested, while those that do exist MUST be provided if requested. Providers MAY define additional provider-specific properties; providers SHOULD use their own namespaces for such properties, or use standard Dublin Core or RDF namespaces and properties where appropriate.

If no specific set of properties is requested, all properties are returned - both those defined in this specification as well as any provider-specific ones. See Selective Property Values in the OSLC Core Specification.

Resource: Performance Monitoring Record

  • Name: PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Description: A resource representing performance monitoring information. This could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.
  • Type URI http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#PerformanceMonitoringRecord

PerformanceMonitoringRecord Properties

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Core: Common Properties
rdf:type zero-or-many unspecified Resource Reference n/a The resource type URIs (RDF).
dcterms:title zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a A name given to the resource (reference: Dublin Core). The title of the resource represented as rich text in XHTML content. Its value SHOULD include only content that is valid inside an XHTML <span> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:description zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a An account of the resource (Dublin Core). The value SHOULD be represented as rich text in XHTML syntax, and SHOULD include only content that is valid and suitable inside an XHTML <div> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:identifier zero-or-one True String n/a n/a An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context (Dublin Core). A unique identifier for a resource. Typically read-only and assigned by the service provider when a resource is created. Not typically intended for end-user display (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:created zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Timestamp of resource creation (Dublin Core)
dcterms:modified zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Date on which the resource was changed (Dublin Core). Timestamp of latest resource modification (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:instanceShape zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ResourceShape A link to the resource’s OSLC Resource Shape that describes the possible properties, occurrence, value types, allowed values and labels. This shape information is useful in displaying the subject resource as well as guiding clients in performing modifications (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:serviceProvider zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ServiceProvider A link to the resource’s OSLC Service Provider (OSLC Core - Common).
Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Performance Monitoring: Start of additional properties
dcterms:date zero-or-one True dateTime n/a n/a The time at which the record was collected (Dublin Core). Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide an explicit time zone facet value (Performance Monitoring). This requirement is necessary to avoid differences in interpretation between servers and clients in different time zones; it is functionally equivalent to using the dateTimeStamp datatype from XML Schema 1.1, but avoids any side effects on SPARQL queries.
ems:observes zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Something observed and measured about a resource (EMS). The ems:observes object will typically be of type ems:Measure, but it MAY be of any type (Core), (Core Links). When the resource is of type ems:Measure, that resource SHOULD contain an ems:Metric predicate whose object is of class pm:Metric (either directly or indirectly).
dcterms:isPartOf exactly-one True Resource Reference n/a A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included (Dublin Core). The related resource typically has one or more of the following types, although it MAY be of any type(s): crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent.

Resource: ems:Measure

The OSLC Estimation and Measurement (EMS) domain defines ems:Measure. This specification re-uses it without modifications, aside from defining additional metric subclasses in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary. Performance Monitoring Record instances will generally re-use units of measure from EMS and other vocabularies such as QUDT and dbpedia.

An example instance, that conveys "Real Memory Utilization"=50% using Turtle syntax, might be:

@prefix pm:     <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .
@prefix oslc:   <http://open-services.net/ns/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ems:    <http://open-services.net/ns/ems#> .
@prefix dbp:    <http://dbpedia.org/resource/>.

@base <http://perfmon-provider.example.org/> .

<rec001#realmemutil50>
            a                    ems:Measure ; # rdf:type
            dcterms:title        "Real Memory Utilization" ;
            ems:metric           <pm:RealMemoryUsed> ;
            ems:unitOfMeasure    <dbp:Percentage> ;
            ems:numericValue     50 ;
.

Equivalent RDF/XML for the preceding example:

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" 
        xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
        xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" 
        xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/" 
        xmlns:qudt="http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt"
        xmlns:pm="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" 
        xmlns:ems="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#">

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://perfmon-provider.example.org/rec001#realmemutil50">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#Measure" />
    <dcterms:title>Real Memory Utilization</dcterms:title>
    <ems:metric rdf:resource="pm:RealMemoryUsed" />
    <ems:unitOfMeasure rdf:resource="dbp:Percentage" />
    <ems:numericValue rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#double">
    50</ems:numericValue>
  </rdf:Description>

  </rdf:RDF>

Metric Categories

This specification introduces metric categories, which loosely correspond to the major headings on the EMS working groups Key Software Metrics page: size, schedule, effort, and quality, derived. As the EMS work shows, categorization itself is not unique to Performance Monitoring. As was done in EMS, the categories defined by this specification are exposed to consumers via RDF Schema subclass annotations in the vocabulary document; an example is shown later in this section.

Exposing each metric’s categorization in the vocabulary definition serves several purposes:

  1. Clients can query for a subset of all metrics exposed in the PerformanceMonitoringRecord without having to enumerate the members of the subset explicitly.
  2. Implementations and other specifications can define new metrics and categorize them, allowing clients unaware of the new metrics’ property names to introspect some information that might influence how they are presented in a user interface.

A summary of the inheritance tree for categories defined by this specification is shown below. This shows, for example, that pm:ResourceUsageMetrics is a subclass of pm:Metric. Please consult the vocabulary document for the authoritative set of relationships.

* `pm:Metric`
    * `pm:CpuMetrics`
    * `pm:DiskMetrics`
    * `pm:MemoryMetrics`
        * `pm:BufferPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:NetworkMetrics`
    * `pm:RequestMetrics`
        * `pm:FailureMetrics`
        * `pm:ResponseTimeMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceAvailabilityMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceUsageMetrics`
        * `pm:ResourceExhaustionMetrics`
    * `pm:ThreadPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:VirtualizationMetrics`

As with RDF types, categories are additive and potentially multi-valued. In other words, a given metric may be a member of as many classes as are semantically sensible. The hierarchy summarized above is useful to reduce redundancy only. For example, if a given metric is defined to be in the category pm:FailureMetrics, then it is redundant (although technically permissible) to define it to be in the category pm:RequestMetrics as well. Specific metrics like pm:RealMemoryUsed are associated with metric categories via the vocabulary document for the namespace by annotating the rdfs:Class with rdfs:subClassOf; the following example shows how to categorize pm:RealMemoryUsed as a resource usage metric and as a memory metric.

In RDF/XML syntax:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">

  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed">
        <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" />
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:label>RealMemoryUsed</rdfs:label>
        <rdfs:comment>Real memory used.</rdfs:comment>
  </rdfs:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

In Turtle syntax:

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix pm: <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .

<http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed> a rdfs:Class ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy pm: ;
    rdfs:subClassOf pm:ResourceUsageMetrics , pm:MemoryMetrics ;
    rdfs:label "RealMemoryUsed" ;
    rdfs:comment "Real memory used." .
Table of Performance Metric Category URIs

This is the set of RDFS Classes that are all of the following:

  • sub-classes of ems:Metric (directly or indirectly)
  • serve to define categories of metrics
  • are actually sub-classed in the current vocabulary by more specific metrics, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime.

In other words, they are “leaf” RDFS Classes that group set of metrics. Leaf classes, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime, are defined exactly like the categories in the table, and could be used as metric categories themselves by other vocabularies or implementations that sub-class them.

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#BufferPoolMetrics Metric category for buffer pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#CpuMetrics Metric category for CPU-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#DiskMetrics Metric category for disk-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#FailureMetrics Metric category for requests that fail.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics Metric category for memory-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Metric Metric category for metrics defined in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NetworkMetrics Metric category for network-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RequestMetrics Metric category for requests on a resource, originating from an end user or a system component.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceAvailabilityMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource availability.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceExhaustionMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource consumption in excess of capacity.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource usage.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResponseTimeMetrics Metric category for metrics that show time it takes for a response to be returned to a request.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ThreadPoolMetrics Metric category for thread pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#VirtualizationMetrics Metric category for virtualization-related resource metrics.

Resource Properties

In addition to resource definitions, this specification defines properties below that can occur in any RDF resource. In the scenarios currently addressed, they are most commonly used with resources of types such as the following, but this list is exemplary, not limiting: crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent. Not all properties will be semantically sensible with all resource types.

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
pm:process zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A process running, for example, in a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:Process, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:disk zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A disk attached, for example, to a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:StorageVolume, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:monitoringAgent zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Software that monitors a resource’s availability, performance, capacity, or utilization. Typically refers to a resource with type foaf:Agent, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:mobilityEnabled zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a An indication about whether the resource, for example a virtual computer system, can move about dynamically.
pm:tableReorganizationNeeded zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a Indicates whether a database’s tables need to be reorganized.
pm:availabilityStatus zero-or-many True Resource Reference n/a An indication of availability. If any value is present, then at least one of them MUST be from the list of URIs defined below. Additional values MAY be present from other namespaces, e.g. to provide more detailed product-specific status. All values present SHOULD be semantically compatible.

Availability Status Property Values

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers can identify the availabilityStatus using references to property values in the OSLC Performance Monitoring vocabulary or to property values that are not in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary (i.e. in the service provider’s own vocabulary). It is expected that the availabilityStatus values will be URI references to property values, but inline resources defining the availabilityStatus property values are also valid.

The resource shape governs occurrence constraints within PM. They say 0:* pm:availabilityStatus.

Hence:

  • if a provider has >= 1 pm:availabilityStatus predicate, then

    • all objects must be non-conflicting

    • at least one of them must be from the PM vocabulary so that clients knowing ONLY the PM spec are “guaranteed” to find at least one value useful.

The property values for pm:availabilityStatus are:

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NotRunning Not running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Running Running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Unknown Unknown

Performance Monitoring Service Provider Capabilities

Service Discovery and Description

Resource Shapes

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY support Resource Shapes as defined in OSLC Core Specification Appendix A

Service Provider Resource

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a Service Provider Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a oslc:serviceProvider property for their defined resources that will be the URI to a Service Provider Resource.

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD expose resource types of type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord. Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD include the type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord on all resources that contain performance monitoring information.

Creation Factories

If an OSLC Performance Monitoring service provider supports the creation of resources, there MUST be at least one Creation Factory entry in its Services definition.

See the HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

Query Capabilities

There SHOULD be at least one Query Capability entry in the Services definition.

The Query Capability MUST support the oslc.where parameter and SHOULD support the oslc.select parameter. If the oslc.where parameter is supported, then the oslc.prefix parameter MUST be supported.

If shape information is NOT present with the Query Capability, service providers SHOULD use the default properties defined in OSLC Core RDF/XML Examples to contain the result.

Delegated UIs

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers support the selection and creation of Performance Monitoring resources as defined by Delegated UIs in OSLC Core.

Performance Monitoring providers support requirements for delegated UIs as follows:

Performance Monitoring Resource Selection Creation
PerformanceMonitoringRecord SHOULD MAY

Service Provider HTTP Method Support

Support for all HTTP methods in the compliance table is not required for all Performance Monitoring resources. The following table summarizes the requirements for each resource definition, HTTP method, and media type combination. A value of N/A means this specification does not impose any constraints on it.

Resource RDF/XML XML JSON HTML Other
Performance Monitoring Record
GET MUST MAY SHOULD SHOULD MAY
PUT MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
POST MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
DELETE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD support deletion of any resources for which they allow creation.

Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines

(this section is informative)

Linking a Performance Monitoring Record to the Resource it Describes

In addition to a Performance Monitoring Record having a predicate to refer to the monitored resource is is part of using pm:isPartOf, a Performance Monitoring record may be a class type for a monitored resource, such that the pm:isPartOf predicate value refers to itself as the object value.

Extending Metrics

  • Choose the correct metric categor(ies) for your metric.
  • Decide whether your class should be part of the ‘perfmon’ namespace or a private namespace.
  • Create an RDFS class for your metric.
  • Create an instance of a PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Put a timestamp on it to indicate when it was collected
  • Put an ems:observes predicate in your PerformanceMonitoringRecord and have it refer to an ems:Measure instance
  • Use your metric in the ems:Measure instance
  • Use ems:unitOfMeasure to specify whether the metric is a rate, a ratio, a quantity, a time, etc.
  • Relate PerformanceMonitoringRecord to monitored resource using isPartOf property

Appendix A: Samples

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix A: Samples]]

Appendix B: Resource Shapes

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix B: Resource Shapes]]

Appendix C: Notices and References

Contributors

Janet Andersen, Jim Conallen, John Arwe, Julie Bielski, Michael Fiedler, Steve Speicher, Tuan Dang

Reporting Issues on the Specification

The working group participants who author and maintain this working draft specification, monitor a distribution list where issues or questions can be raised, see Performance Monitoring Mailing List

Also the issues found with this specification and their resolution can be found at [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Issues]].

Authors and Contact Information

License and Intellectual Property

We make this specification available under the terms and conditions set forth in the site Terms of Use, IP Policy, and the Workgroup Participation Agreement for this Workgroup.

References

]]> Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:43 EST <![CDATA[OSLC Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/#When:1391185957 OSLC_logo.png

Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration
Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0

This Version

Latest Version

Previous Version

  • This is the first version.

Authors

Contributors

Table of Contents

[TOC]

Notation and Conventions

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. Domain name examples use RFC2606.

Introduction

(this section is informative)

This specification builds on the OSLC Core Specification to define the resources and operations supported by an Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) Performance Monitoring provider. This version of the specification has version 2.0 to indicate that it is an OSLC Core 2.0 compliant specification.

Performance Monitoring resources define records whose content is most useful in the testing and operational stages of the software development, test, and deployment lifecycle. They represent individual resources as well as their relationships to other resources and to other linked resources outside of the Performance Monitoring domain. The intent of this specification is to define the set of HTTP-based RESTful interfaces in terms of HTTP methods: GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, HTTP response codes, MIME type handling and resource formats. The capabilities of the interface definitions are driven by key integration scenarios and therefore do not represent a complete set of operations on resources or resource types. The resource formats and operations may not exactly match the native models supported by existing implementations, but are intended to be compatible with them.

Performance Monitoring, as referenced in this specification, refers to the collection of data about Information Technology (IT) systems such as servers, workstations, services, and transactions to assess their operational health and enable proactive manual human intervention before emerging problems escalate into widespread degradation or outages. See the [[Performance Monitoring Scenarios]] page for several specific examples.

Terminology

Service Provider - an implementation of the OSLC Performance Monitoring specification as a server. OSLC Performance Monitoring clients consume these services.

Performance Monitoring Record - Defines the unit of information made available by a Performance Monitoring service provider. The information could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.

Monitored resource - An entity such as a software server or computer system that is monitored by a software agent to ensure its performance and availability. In this specification when we use the word ‘resource’ to mean a monitored resource rather than an OSLC resource, we try to qualify the word to make our intent clear.

Base Requirements

Compliance

This specification is based on OSLC Core Specification. OSLC Performance Monitoring consumers and service providers MUST be compliant with both the core specification and this Performance Monitoring specification, and SHOULD follow all the guidelines and recommendations in both these specifications.

The following table summarizes the requirements from OSLC Core Specification as well as some (but not all) additional requirements specific to Performance Monitoring. See the full content of the Performance Monitoring specification for all requirements. Note that this specification further restricts some of the requirements for OSLC Core Specification as noted in the Origin column of the compliance table. See further sections in this specification or the OSLC Core Specification to get further details on each of these requirements.

Any consumer or service provider behaviors are allowed unless explicitly prohibited by this or dependent specifications; conditional permissive requirements, especially those qualified with “MAY”, are implicitly covered by the preceding clause. While technically redundant in light of that broad permission, OSLC specifications do still make explicit MAY-qualified statements in cases where the editors believe doing so is likely to add clarity.

Requirements on OSLC Consumers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC clients MUST preserve unknown content

Requirements on OSLC Service Providers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY ignore unknown content
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST return an error code if recognized content is invalid.
Resource Operations MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST support resource operations via standard HTTP operations
Resource Paging MAY Core OSLC services MAY provide paging for resources
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP GET requests for retrieval of a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP PUT requests for updating a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Service Provider Resources MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog resource
Service Provider Resources MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST provide a Service Provider resource
Creation Factories MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide creation factories to enable resource creation via HTTP POST
Query Capabilities SHOULD1 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide query capabilities to enable clients to query for resources
Query Syntax MUST2 Perf Mon, Core If a service provider supports a OSLC query capability, its query capabilities MUST support the OSLC Core Query Syntax
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD allow clients to discover, via their service provider resources, any Delegated UI Dialogs they offer.
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource creation
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource selection
UI Preview SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD offer UI previews for resources that may be referenced by other resources
HTTP Basic Authentication MAY Core OSLC Services MAY support Basic Auth
HTTP Basic Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD support Basic Auth only over HTTPS
OAuth Authentication MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support OAuth
OAuth Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC service providers that support OAuth SHOULD allow clients to discover the required OAuth URLs via their service provider resource
Error Responses MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide error responses using Core-defined error formats
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST offer an RDF/XML representation for HTTP GET responses
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations on PUT requests.
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core RDF/XML representations on POST requests whose semantic intent is to create a new resource instance.
XML Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a XML representation for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for XML.
JSON Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide JSON representations for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for JSON
HTML Representations SHOULD3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide HTML representations for HTTP GET requests
  • 1The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY provide Query Capabilities. This specification strengthens the requirement.
  • 2The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY support the OSLC Query Syntax. This specification makes OSLC Query Syntax support a MUST requirement for service providers providing query capabilities.
  • 3Support for all common HTTP methods is not required for all resources defined by this specification. See the HTTP Method support table for details.

Specification Versioning

See OSLC Core Specification Versioning section.

Namespaces

Defined

OSLC Performance Monitoring defines the namespace shown in the table below. This namespace URI and prefix are used to designate the resources and their properties defined in this specification.

Use of the suggested prefix is RECOMMENDED, because doing so aids debugging and other situations where humans read the data.

Suggested namespace prefix Namespace URI
pm http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#

Re-used from other specifications

In addition to the namespace URIs and namespace prefixes defined in the OSLC Core specification, OSLC Performance Monitoring also re-uses vocabulary terms from other namespaces. The namespace prefixes in the table below are used in this specification, and match the recommendations made by the specification that defines each.

Namespace prefix used Namespace URI Usage
ems http://open-services.net/ns/ems# Vocabulary is required for Performance Monitoring providers to expose metrics. Defined in the OSLC Estimation and Measurement domain.
crtv http://open-services.net/ns/crtv# Vocabulary is expected to be commonly used by Performance Monitoring providers, but is not required. Defined in the OSLC Reconciliation domain.

Resource Formats

In addition to the requirements for OSLC Defined Resource Representations, this section outlines further refinements and restrictions.

See HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

For HTTP GET requests on all OSLC Performance Monitoring and OSLC Core defined resource types,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML representations. If provided, the RDF/XML representation SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance for RDF/XML.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY provide XML and JSON representations. The XML and JSON representations SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting XML SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support an [X]HTML representation and a user interface (UI) preview as defined by UI Preview Guidance

For HTTP PUT/POST request formats for Performance Monitoring resources,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations and MAY accept XML representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. If XML is accepted, Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY accept XML and JSON representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting XML or JSON SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.

For HTTP GET response formats for Query requests,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML and MAY provide JSON, XML, and Atom Syndication Format XML.

When Performance Monitoring Consumers request:

  • application/rdf+xml Performance Monitoring Providers MUST respond with RDF/XML representation without restrictions.
  • application/xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with OSLC-defined abbreviated XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • application/atom+xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with Atom Syndication Format XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • If supported, the Atom Syndication Format XML representation SHOULD use RDF/XML representation without restrictions for the atom:content entries representing the resource representations.

Authentication

See OSLC Core Authentication section. This specification puts no additional constraints on authentication.

Error Responses

See OSLC Core Error Responses section. This specification puts no additional constraints on error responses.

Pagination

Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support pagination of query results and MAY support pagination of a single resource’s properties as defined by the OSLC Core Specification.

Labels for Relationships

Relationships to other resources are represented as properties whose values are the URI of the object or target resource. When a relationship property is to be presented in a user interface, it may be helpful to provide an informative and useful textual label for that relationship instance. (This in addition to the relationship property URI and the object resource URI, which are also candidates for presentation to a user.) OSLC Core Links Guidance allows OSLC providers to support a dcterms:title link property in resource representations, using the anchor approach (reification), but this specification discourages its use (providers SHOULD NOT use it, and consumers SHOULD NOT depend on it). At the time this specification was written, the W3C RDF working group was on a path to remove reification from the next version of RDF, and it was noted that reification never was normatively defined even in the RDF/XML syntax W3C Recommendation, where it occurs informatively.

Resource Definitions

A list of properties is defined for each type of resource. Most of these properties are identified in OSLC Core Appendix A: Common Properties. Any exceptions are noted. Relationship properties refer to other resources. These resources MAY be any resource; that is, they MAY or MAY NOT be in any OSLC domain, including Performance Monitoring. Likewise, they MAY or MAY NOT be HTTP or RDF resources.

The diagram below shows an example of one way that a Performance Monitoring Record resource may relate to the resources it describes. With this option, the Performance Monitoring record uses the isPartOf predicate to refer to the monitored resource its describing.

Another option is described near the bottom of this specification in the section entitled [[Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines]].

[[Image:pm_domain8.JPG]]

For all resource types defined in this specification, all required properties (those defined with an occurrence of exactly-one or one-or-many) MUST exist for each resource and MUST be provided when requested. All other properties are optional, and might not exist on some or any resources; those that do not exist will not be present in the returned representation even if requested, while those that do exist MUST be provided if requested. Providers MAY define additional provider-specific properties; providers SHOULD use their own namespaces for such properties, or use standard Dublin Core or RDF namespaces and properties where appropriate.

If no specific set of properties is requested, all properties are returned - both those defined in this specification as well as any provider-specific ones. See Selective Property Values in the OSLC Core Specification.

Resource: Performance Monitoring Record

  • Name: PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Description: A resource representing performance monitoring information. This could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.
  • Type URI http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#PerformanceMonitoringRecord

PerformanceMonitoringRecord Properties

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Core: Common Properties
rdf:type zero-or-many unspecified Resource Reference n/a The resource type URIs (RDF).
dcterms:title zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a A name given to the resource (reference: Dublin Core). The title of the resource represented as rich text in XHTML content. Its value SHOULD include only content that is valid inside an XHTML <span> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:description zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a An account of the resource (Dublin Core). The value SHOULD be represented as rich text in XHTML syntax, and SHOULD include only content that is valid and suitable inside an XHTML <div> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:identifier zero-or-one True String n/a n/a An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context (Dublin Core). A unique identifier for a resource. Typically read-only and assigned by the service provider when a resource is created. Not typically intended for end-user display (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:created zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Timestamp of resource creation (Dublin Core)
dcterms:modified zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Date on which the resource was changed (Dublin Core). Timestamp of latest resource modification (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:instanceShape zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ResourceShape A link to the resource’s OSLC Resource Shape that describes the possible properties, occurrence, value types, allowed values and labels. This shape information is useful in displaying the subject resource as well as guiding clients in performing modifications (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:serviceProvider zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ServiceProvider A link to the resource’s OSLC Service Provider (OSLC Core - Common).
Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Performance Monitoring: Start of additional properties
dcterms:date zero-or-one True dateTime n/a n/a The time at which the record was collected (Dublin Core). Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide an explicit time zone facet value (Performance Monitoring). This requirement is necessary to avoid differences in interpretation between servers and clients in different time zones; it is functionally equivalent to using the dateTimeStamp datatype from XML Schema 1.1, but avoids any side effects on SPARQL queries.
ems:observes zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Something observed and measured about a resource (EMS). The ems:observes object will typically be of type ems:Measure, but it MAY be of any type (Core), (Core Links). When the resource is of type ems:Measure, that resource SHOULD contain an ems:Metric predicate whose object is of class pm:Metric (either directly or indirectly).
dcterms:isPartOf exactly-one True Resource Reference n/a A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included (Dublin Core). The related resource typically has one or more of the following types, although it MAY be of any type(s): crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent.

Resource: ems:Measure

The OSLC Estimation and Measurement (EMS) domain defines ems:Measure. This specification re-uses it without modifications, aside from defining additional metric subclasses in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary. Performance Monitoring Record instances will generally re-use units of measure from EMS and other vocabularies such as QUDT and dbpedia.

An example instance, that conveys "Real Memory Utilization"=50% using Turtle syntax, might be:

@prefix pm:     <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .
@prefix oslc:   <http://open-services.net/ns/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ems:    <http://open-services.net/ns/ems#> .
@prefix dbp:    <http://dbpedia.org/resource/>.

@base <http://perfmon-provider.example.org/> .

<rec001#realmemutil50>
            a                    ems:Measure ; # rdf:type
            dcterms:title        "Real Memory Utilization" ;
            ems:metric           <pm:RealMemoryUsed> ;
            ems:unitOfMeasure    <dbp:Percentage> ;
            ems:numericValue     50 ;
.

Equivalent RDF/XML for the preceding example:

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" 
        xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
        xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" 
        xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/" 
        xmlns:qudt="http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt"
        xmlns:pm="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" 
        xmlns:ems="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#">

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://perfmon-provider.example.org/rec001#realmemutil50">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#Measure" />
    <dcterms:title>Real Memory Utilization</dcterms:title>
    <ems:metric rdf:resource="pm:RealMemoryUsed" />
    <ems:unitOfMeasure rdf:resource="dbp:Percentage" />
    <ems:numericValue rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#double">
    50</ems:numericValue>
  </rdf:Description>

  </rdf:RDF>

Metric Categories

This specification introduces metric categories, which loosely correspond to the major headings on the EMS working groups Key Software Metrics page: size, schedule, effort, and quality, derived. As the EMS work shows, categorization itself is not unique to Performance Monitoring. As was done in EMS, the categories defined by this specification are exposed to consumers via RDF Schema subclass annotations in the vocabulary document; an example is shown later in this section.

Exposing each metric’s categorization in the vocabulary definition serves several purposes:

  1. Clients can query for a subset of all metrics exposed in the PerformanceMonitoringRecord without having to enumerate the members of the subset explicitly.
  2. Implementations and other specifications can define new metrics and categorize them, allowing clients unaware of the new metrics’ property names to introspect some information that might influence how they are presented in a user interface.

A summary of the inheritance tree for categories defined by this specification is shown below. This shows, for example, that pm:ResourceUsageMetrics is a subclass of pm:Metric. Please consult the vocabulary document for the authoritative set of relationships.

* `pm:Metric`
    * `pm:CpuMetrics`
    * `pm:DiskMetrics`
    * `pm:MemoryMetrics`
        * `pm:BufferPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:NetworkMetrics`
    * `pm:RequestMetrics`
        * `pm:FailureMetrics`
        * `pm:ResponseTimeMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceAvailabilityMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceUsageMetrics`
        * `pm:ResourceExhaustionMetrics`
    * `pm:ThreadPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:VirtualizationMetrics`

As with RDF types, categories are additive and potentially multi-valued. In other words, a given metric may be a member of as many classes as are semantically sensible. The hierarchy summarized above is useful to reduce redundancy only. For example, if a given metric is defined to be in the category pm:FailureMetrics, then it is redundant (although technically permissible) to define it to be in the category pm:RequestMetrics as well. Specific metrics like pm:RealMemoryUsed are associated with metric categories via the vocabulary document for the namespace by annotating the rdfs:Class with rdfs:subClassOf; the following example shows how to categorize pm:RealMemoryUsed as a resource usage metric and as a memory metric.

In RDF/XML syntax:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">

  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed">
        <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" />
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:label>RealMemoryUsed</rdfs:label>
        <rdfs:comment>Real memory used.</rdfs:comment>
  </rdfs:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

In Turtle syntax:

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix pm: <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .

<http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed> a rdfs:Class ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy pm: ;
    rdfs:subClassOf pm:ResourceUsageMetrics , pm:MemoryMetrics ;
    rdfs:label "RealMemoryUsed" ;
    rdfs:comment "Real memory used." .
Table of Performance Metric Category URIs

This is the set of RDFS Classes that are all of the following:

  • sub-classes of ems:Metric (directly or indirectly)
  • serve to define categories of metrics
  • are actually sub-classed in the current vocabulary by more specific metrics, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime.

In other words, they are “leaf” RDFS Classes that group set of metrics. Leaf classes, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime, are defined exactly like the categories in the table, and could be used as metric categories themselves by other vocabularies or implementations that sub-class them.

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#BufferPoolMetrics Metric category for buffer pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#CpuMetrics Metric category for CPU-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#DiskMetrics Metric category for disk-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#FailureMetrics Metric category for requests that fail.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics Metric category for memory-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Metric Metric category for metrics defined in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NetworkMetrics Metric category for network-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RequestMetrics Metric category for requests on a resource, originating from an end user or a system component.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceAvailabilityMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource availability.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceExhaustionMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource consumption in excess of capacity.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource usage.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResponseTimeMetrics Metric category for metrics that show time it takes for a response to be returned to a request.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ThreadPoolMetrics Metric category for thread pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#VirtualizationMetrics Metric category for virtualization-related resource metrics.

Resource Properties

In addition to resource definitions, this specification defines properties below that can occur in any RDF resource. In the scenarios currently addressed, they are most commonly used with resources of types such as the following, but this list is exemplary, not limiting: crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent. Not all properties will be semantically sensible with all resource types.

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
pm:process zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A process running, for example, in a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:Process, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:disk zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A disk attached, for example, to a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:Disk, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:monitoringAgent zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Software that monitors a resource’s availability, performance, capacity, or utilization. Typically refers to a resource with type foaf:Agent, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:mobilityEnabled zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a An indication about whether the resource, for example a virtual computer system, can move about dynamically.
pm:tableReorganizationNeeded zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a Indicates whether a database’s tables need to be reorganized.
pm:availabilityStatus zero-or-many True Resource Reference n/a An indication of availability. If any value is present, then at least one of them MUST be from the list of URIs defined below. Additional values MAY be present from other namespaces, e.g. to provide more detailed product-specific status. All values present SHOULD be semantically compatible.

Availability Status Property Values

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers can identify the availabilityStatus using references to property values in the OSLC Performance Monitoring vocabulary or to property values that are not in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary (i.e. in the service provider’s own vocabulary). It is expected that the availabilityStatus values will be URI references to property values, but inline resources defining the availabilityStatus property values are also valid.

The resource shape governs occurrence constraints within PM. They say 0:* pm:availabilityStatus.

Hence:

  • if a provider has >= 1 pm:availabilityStatus predicate, then

    • all objects must be non-conflicting

    • at least one of them must be from the PM vocabulary so that clients knowing ONLY the PM spec are “guaranteed” to find at least one value useful.

The property values for pm:availabilityStatus are:

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NotRunning Not running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Running Running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Unknown Unknown

Performance Monitoring Service Provider Capabilities

Service Discovery and Description

Resource Shapes

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY support Resource Shapes as defined in OSLC Core Specification Appendix A

Service Provider Resource

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a Service Provider Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a oslc:serviceProvider property for their defined resources that will be the URI to a Service Provider Resource.

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD expose resource types of type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord. Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD include the type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord on all resources that contain performance monitoring information.

Creation Factories

If an OSLC Performance Monitoring service provider supports the creation of resources, there MUST be at least one Creation Factory entry in its Services definition.

See the HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

Query Capabilities

There SHOULD be at least one Query Capability entry in the Services definition.

The Query Capability MUST support the oslc.where parameter and SHOULD support the oslc.select parameter. If the oslc.where parameter is supported, then the oslc.prefix parameter MUST be supported.

If shape information is NOT present with the Query Capability, service providers SHOULD use the default properties defined in OSLC Core RDF/XML Examples to contain the result.

Delegated UIs

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers support the selection and creation of Performance Monitoring resources as defined by Delegated UIs in OSLC Core.

Performance Monitoring providers support requirements for delegated UIs as follows:

Performance Monitoring Resource Selection Creation
PerformanceMonitoringRecord SHOULD MAY

Service Provider HTTP Method Support

Support for all HTTP methods in the compliance table is not required for all Performance Monitoring resources. The following table summarizes the requirements for each resource definition, HTTP method, and media type combination. A value of N/A means this specification does not impose any constraints on it.

Resource RDF/XML XML JSON HTML Other
Performance Monitoring Record
GET MUST MAY SHOULD SHOULD MAY
PUT MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
POST MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
DELETE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD support deletion of any resources for which they allow creation.

Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines

(this section is informative)

Linking a Performance Monitoring Record to the Resource it Describes

In addition to a Performance Monitoring Record having a predicate to refer to the monitored resource is is part of using pm:isPartOf, a Performance Monitoring record may be a class type for a monitored resource, such that the pm:isPartOf predicate value refers to itself as the object value.

Extending Metrics

  • Choose the correct metric categor(ies) for your metric.
  • Decide whether your class should be part of the ‘perfmon’ namespace or a private namespace.
  • Create an RDFS class for your metric.
  • Create an instance of a PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Put a timestamp on it to indicate when it was collected
  • Put an ems:observes predicate in your PerformanceMonitoringRecord and have it refer to an ems:Measure instance
  • Use your metric in the ems:Measure instance
  • Use ems:unitOfMeasure to specify whether the metric is a rate, a ratio, a quantity, a time, etc.
  • Relate PerformanceMonitoringRecord to monitored resource using isPartOf property

Appendix A: Samples

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix A: Samples]]

Appendix B: Resource Shapes

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix B: Resource Shapes]]

Appendix C: Notices and References

Contributors

Janet Andersen, Jim Conallen, John Arwe, Julie Bielski, Michael Fiedler, Steve Speicher, Tuan Dang

Reporting Issues on the Specification

The working group participants who author and maintain this working draft specification, monitor a distribution list where issues or questions can be raised, see Performance Monitoring Mailing List

Also the issues found with this specification and their resolution can be found at [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Issues]].

Authors and Contact Information

License and Intellectual Property

We make this specification available under the terms and conditions set forth in the site Terms of Use, IP Policy, and the Workgroup Participation Agreement for this Workgroup.

References

]]> Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:32 EST <![CDATA[Architectural Direction]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Architectural-Direction/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Architectural-Direction/#When:1369412040 In-progress Working document - supporting specification development for the next version of PM. This is not an official list of committed items but a live working document to help prioritize and elaborate on the specification efforts.

[TOC]

The purpose of this page is to collect the architectural direction as driven by scenario priorities for the next version of PM specifications (V1). It also contains any issues left unaddressed in previous version(s), if any.

Items for Consideration for 2.0

Themes

  • Low entry point

Others to consider:

  • Specific examples are intended to be exemplary, not limiting. The assumption is, that unless something is specifically excluded in normative text (MUST NOT), it is “possible”. The intent is to allow a broad range of alternative implementations and implementation decisions.
  • Re-use existing material when possible, rather than defining new, especially vocabularies widely used in the global RDF community, like Dublin Core.
  • Enable whatever is defined-new here for wide re-use by other specifications, for potentially unforeseen scenarios.
  • Avoid using reification, even though it is allowed by Core 2.0 Appendix C
  • Use of DateTime (from XML Schema 1.0) vs DateTimeStamp (from XML Schema 1.1)
  • Linkage between Perf Mon Record and the resource its metrics “describe”

Item Details

Re-use of Other Vocabularies

Potential re-use of software estimation and measurement work from the Software Project Management working group, which they call EMS.

  1. EMS-defined metric URIs: see especially
    1. ems:Metric = a name for something that can be measured. For example, duration is the EMS metric that measures the amount of time that a project takes.
    2. ems:UnitOfMeasure = the units associated with the specific measured value of a metric. For example, project duration is typically measured in units of months or years.
    3. NASA’s QUDT vocabulary defines a substantial set of metrics that EMS metrics have a defined relationship to QUDT, a few of which appear to be ripe for re-use in Performance Monitoring, like the following. Diving directly in QUDT is not trivial, so the EMS page introductory material may be useful.
      1. Dimensionless for counts, like database connections
      2. DimensionlessRatio for percentages like CPU utilization
      3. Frequency if we need to expose how often a particular metric is collected
      4. Time as an alternative to EMS for durations and timestamps. Would need to decide between them if both are viable for our scenarios.
    4. ems:TimeMetrics: see if Duration, Start/Finish times make sense to re-use
  2. Representing the value of a particular value, e.g. CPU utilization is 95%, or an average of 200.5 database connections are in use
    1. Metric Entities gives a bit of context for EMS’s approach to things.
    2. ems:Measure = a single measured value of a metric in specific unit: contains title, name of metric, name of units of measure, numeric value
    3. EMS metric values appear to be all double (timestamps are represented as Unix time). For averages etc. suspect PerfMon will need floats; note however that the lexical space of double encompasses the lexical spaces of integer and float, so double actually covers all numeric data. EMS recommends rendering boolean values as 0/1 for client simplicity rather than introducing another predicate.

Potential re-use of W3C Recommendation-track linked data vocabularies, or (if more applicable) the inputs they reference.

  1. W3C Government Linked Data WG - the inputs/outputs for the “statistical cube” vocabulary may be relevant. Find drafts off the WG wiki, and some others (that may eventually migrate to the WG wiki page) on their vocabulary discussion wiki page.
    1. Not very mature at this point, only at First Public Working Draft status.
    2. DBPedia is popular (RDF extract of Wikipedia) in Linked Data circles for general terms.

Use of DateTime

  • xsd10:DateTime allows omission of timezone. Default is to interpret it as the timezone of the server.
  • Clients may be in different time zone from the server, making correct interpretation of timestamps impossible without out of band knowledge.
  • Different clients, each in a distinct time zone, may interact with the same resource.
  • Hence, all timestamps lacking an explicit time zone facet are ambiguous in the absolute sense.
  • xsd11:DateTimeStamp is a new data type introduced to close this gap. It is the same as xsd10:DateTime except that it makes the time zone facet mandatory.
  • Other specs like SPARQL have not yet been updated to include DTS, so the Core WG felt it was premature of us to incorporate it directly. They recommended that we continue using DateTime and have the spec require a time zone facet in prose instead.

Linkage

  • By their nature Perf Mon Records are data “about” something else … IT component in our scenarios, but could be anything measurable.
  • We want everything we define here to be equally re-usable in other domains.
  • Defining types for all the “things” (types) that a PMR could describe is not a direct requirement of the scenarios.
  • The Reconciliation WG already has a proposal for common types like Computer System, process, disk, etc.
  • PM does need to define some way to link a PMR to what it describes in order to satisfy the scenarios, even if it does not really care what type is used as the object of the link, unless it imposes an implementation requirement for multi-typing (the PMR is also of-type “thing that PMR describes”). While current implementations can tolerate that, it seems over-reaching to impose multi-typing on all implementations.
  • We have no obvious scenario where we need to access/find a PMR by starting with “the thing” and following a link to the PMR, so there is no obvious need to define a reverse predicate.
  • Given SPARQL support or equivalent, the PMR->thing link could be followed in the reverse direction without defining a specific predicate for that.
  • Core WG is still wrestling with general guidance on bidi linking because of the expectations it tends to create about coherency (when a link in one direction exists, many people expect that the inverse link MUST also exist or there is an error).
  • Absent a specific scenario, we will defer defining a link in the opposite direction.

Specification backlog

  • Averages are underspecified
    • Not all averages are created equal:
      • arithmetic, geometric, …
      • duration, number of values
      • measured, sampled
    • How does a client find out which of these combinations, and possibly others, was used to construct any particular average?
    • Current scenarios do not express this need, so the syntax does not address it. Likewise, the metrics associated with a PMR are Gauges vs. Counters.
  • Current PMR approach does not handle large tables well
    • Because each point (ems:observes) is fully self-defining, it is well-suited for PMRs that contain a single point-in-time set of distinct values, i.e. the current scenarios.
    • For the same reason, it would duplicate information (unit of measure, metric type, … all but value) in the case were the PMR is exposing a set of such observations, for example a set of similar observations at specific timed intervals. EMS offers fact table as a more efficient way of representing this.
      • Dimensions would be things like: status = successes, failures, total.
      • ems:Measurement is an EMS analog to a Perf Mon Record, showing how current PMR-style ems:observes and possibly-future-PMR fact tables can be exposed.
      • EMS REST API Data Model provides a bit of context
]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 12:14 EDT <![CDATA[index]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/#When:1369411795 Quick 2.0 links: [[Meeting agendas and minutes | Meetings]] | Email archives | [[Performance Monitoring Scenarios | PM Scenarios]] | [[OSLC Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0 | PM Specification]] | [[Performance Monitoring Examples | Examples]]

[TOC]

Goal

Enable simpler, more open, and more durable integration between monitoring tools and consumers of monitoring data for resources such as applications, computer systems, storage volumes, etc.

To join this working group

Please:

  1. Request a meeting invitation: contact Julie Bielski or send an email to the working group’s mailing list admins (note: remove NOSPAM from the destination domain name).
  2. Register for the Performance Monitoring mailing list.
  3. Follow the general community instructions that apply to each working group. It amounts to:
    1. registering for a site userid (once for the site - you can use the “Sign Up!” link in the left navigation bar to sign up),
    2. completing the Member Agreement (only upon joining your first OSLC WG), and
    3. completing the Working Group Participation Agreement (once for each specific WG you are joining).

Background

This working group will define a set of resources, formats and RESTful services that may be used by lifecycle tools such as operations dashboards, change management tools, asset management tools and others to obtain performance and availability metrics for resources. The need for this workgroup is further driven by web operations.

Some monitoring tools provide hundreds or more individual metrics about a range of resources. It is NOT our intent to reproduce that work in all its richness and detail. Only the subset needed to satisfy the in-scope scenarios will be included in the Performance Monitoring resource definitions, i.e. the subset that most/all tools would be able to provide and that participants can readily agree on.

The approach will be to define a small number of tightly constrained scenarios and to address those by drafting specifications, collecting implementation experience using those drafts, and then closing (finalizing) those specifications. This approach will decrease the barrier to sharing performance and availability metric data across multiple vendors and tools as part of the Operations Lifecycle. Future iterations of that process may be used to address additional scenarios and resource types. The initial focus will be on metrics for middleware health. There are many other monitoring domains that could be covered in future iterations such as storage, network, computer system, etc.

Specifications

2.0 is the first version of the documents below. The OSLC Core working group recommends that domain working groups use the specification version to indicate that they are based on the OSLC Core 2.0 specification. This working group chose to use a consistent version number for all related documents.

2.0

OSLC-PM 2.0 Specifications

Document Link Status
Performance Monitoring Specification [[OSLC Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0 2.0]] | Final

Supporting Documents

Document Link Status
PM Scenarios and Use Cases [[Performance Monitoring Scenarios 2.0]] | Note
PM Vocabulary 2.0 Final
Common Resource Type Vocabulary [[Common Resource Type Vocabulary Version 2.0 2.0]] | Final
Architectural Direction [[Architectural Direction 2.0]] | Note
Examples [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix A: Samples 2.0]] | Note
Implementation Reports 2.0 Ongoing

Milestones

Note: iterative specification validation will be occurring as the drafts evolve before finalization. The goal is to have at least 2 implementations of the specification before it is considered finalized.

Version Create Draft Specs Start Convergence Finalize Specs
2.0 2012-05-15 2012-10-26 2012-11

Resources

How to join a working group

[[Meeting agendas and minutes | Meetings]]

Mailing List

Register for the Performance Monitoring mailing list

Performance Monitoring mail archives

General OSLC Community

]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 12:09 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368216030 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    * ServiceProviderCatalog
* ServiceProvider
* Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules
* Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Lyo.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource
  3. Difficult to tell which Core capabilities were supported by Lyo just by looking at test classes when filling out implementation report
  4. Implementation report template listing Core capabilities is out of sync with the table of capabilities in the specifications

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 16:00 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214422 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    * ServiceProviderCatalog
* ServiceProvider
* Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules
* Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:33 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214292 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    - ServiceProviderCatalog

- ServiceProvider

- Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules

- Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:31 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214242 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    ServiceProviderCatalog

ServiceProvider

Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules

Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:30 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214206 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    * ServiceProviderCatalog

* ServiceProvider

* Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules

* Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:30 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214116 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of:

    *ServiceProviderCatalog

*ServiceProvider

*Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules

*Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:28 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214083 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements

  • Tests RDF/XML representations of: *ServiceProviderCatalog

    *ServiceProvider

*Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules

*Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:28 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368214045 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements
  • Tests RDF/XML representations of: *ServiceProviderCatalog *ServiceProvider *Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules *Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:27 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368213983 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements
  • Tests RDF/XML representations of: * ServiceProviderCatalog * ServiceProvider * Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules * Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.
  2. Had to write a test for each resource type that was associated with a Performance Monitoring Record vs. just a test for an individual Performance Monitoring Record since PMRs are meaningless without the context of a particular resource

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:26 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1368213805 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Eclipse Lyo Performance Monitoring Test Suite

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Eclipse Lyo (lyo-dev@eclipse.org)
  • Product version number : N/A - the Lyo OSLC samples are continuously improved and added to.

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Tests OSLC V2 Core and Performance Monitoring MUST requirements
  • Tests RDF/XML representations of: ** ServiceProviderCatalog ** ServiceProvider ** Perfomance Monitoring Records for ComputerSystems, SoftwareServers, Databases, Processes, Agents, StorageVolumes, and SoftwareModules ** Covers both MUST and OPTIONAL requirements of Performance Monitoring

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. Nothing major. Found a few bugs in test suite along the way.

Worked well:

  1. Was very simple to plug-in perf mon tests

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:23 EDT <![CDATA[OSLC Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/OSLC-Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Version-2.0/#When:1367345190 OSLC_logo.png

Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration
Performance Monitoring Specification Version 2.0

This Version

Latest Version

Previous Version

  • This is the first version.

Authors

Contributors

Table of Contents

[TOC]

Notation and Conventions

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. Domain name examples use RFC2606.

Introduction

(this section is informative)

This specification builds on the OSLC Core Specification to define the resources and operations supported by an Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) Performance Monitoring provider. This version of the specification has version 2.0 to indicate that it is an OSLC Core 2.0 compliant specification.

Performance Monitoring resources define records whose content is most useful in the testing and operational stages of the software development, test, and deployment lifecycle. They represent individual resources as well as their relationships to other resources and to other linked resources outside of the Performance Monitoring domain. The intent of this specification is to define the set of HTTP-based RESTful interfaces in terms of HTTP methods: GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, HTTP response codes, MIME type handling and resource formats. The capabilities of the interface definitions are driven by key integration scenarios and therefore do not represent a complete set of operations on resources or resource types. The resource formats and operations may not exactly match the native models supported by existing implementations, but are intended to be compatible with them.

Performance Monitoring, as referenced in this specification, refers to the collection of data about Information Technology (IT) systems such as servers, workstations, services, and transactions to assess their operational health and enable proactive manual human intervention before emerging problems escalate into widespread degradation or outages. See the [[Performance Monitoring Scenarios]] page for several specific examples.

Terminology

Service Provider - an implementation of the OSLC Performance Monitoring specification as a server. OSLC Performance Monitoring clients consume these services.

Performance Monitoring Record - Defines the unit of information made available by a Performance Monitoring service provider. The information could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.

Monitored resource - An entity such as a software server or computer system that is monitored by a software agent to ensure its performance and availability. In this specification when we use the word ‘resource’ to mean a monitored resource rather than an OSLC resource, we try to qualify the word to make our intent clear.

Base Requirements

Compliance

This specification is based on OSLC Core Specification. OSLC Performance Monitoring consumers and service providers MUST be compliant with both the core specification and this Performance Monitoring specification, and SHOULD follow all the guidelines and recommendations in both these specifications.

The following table summarizes the requirements from OSLC Core Specification as well as some (but not all) additional requirements specific to Performance Monitoring. See the full content of the Performance Monitoring specification for all requirements. Note that this specification further restricts some of the requirements for OSLC Core Specification as noted in the Origin column of the compliance table. See further sections in this specification or the OSLC Core Specification to get further details on each of these requirements.

Any consumer or service provider behaviors are allowed unless explicitly prohibited by this or dependent specifications; conditional permissive requirements, especially those qualified with “MAY”, are implicitly covered by the preceding clause. While technically redundant in light of that broad permission, OSLC specifications do still make explicit MAY-qualified statements in cases where the editors believe doing so is likely to add clarity.

Requirements on OSLC Consumers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC clients MUST preserve unknown content

Requirements on OSLC Service Providers

Requirement Level Origin(s) Meaning
Unknown properties and content MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY ignore unknown content
Unknown properties and content MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST return an error code if recognized content is invalid.
Resource Operations MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST support resource operations via standard HTTP operations
Resource Paging MAY Core OSLC services MAY provide paging for resources
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP GET requests for retrieval of a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Partial Resource Representations MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support HTTP PUT requests for updating a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
Service Provider Resources MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog resource
Service Provider Resources MUST Core OSLC service providers MUST provide a Service Provider resource
Creation Factories MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide creation factories to enable resource creation via HTTP POST
Query Capabilities SHOULD1 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide query capabilities to enable clients to query for resources
Query Syntax MUST2 Perf Mon, Core If a service provider supports a OSLC query capability, its query capabilities MUST support the OSLC Core Query Syntax
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD allow clients to discover, via their service provider resources, any Delegated UI Dialogs they offer.
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource creation
Delegated UI Dialogs SHOULD Core OSLC service providers SHOULD offer delegated UI dialogs for resource selection
UI Preview SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD offer UI previews for resources that may be referenced by other resources
HTTP Basic Authentication MAY Core OSLC Services MAY support Basic Auth
HTTP Basic Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC Services SHOULD support Basic Auth only over HTTPS
OAuth Authentication MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY support OAuth
OAuth Authentication SHOULD Core OSLC service providers that support OAuth SHOULD allow clients to discover the required OAuth URLs via their service provider resource
Error Responses MAY Core OSLC service providers MAY provide error responses using Core-defined error formats
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST offer an RDF/XML representation for HTTP GET responses
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations on PUT requests.
RDF/XML Representations MUST3 Perf Mon, Core RDF/XML representations on POST requests whose semantic intent is to create a new resource instance.
XML Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide a XML representation for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for XML.
JSON Representations MAY3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers MAY provide JSON representations for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core Guidelines for JSON
HTML Representations SHOULD3 Perf Mon, Core OSLC service providers SHOULD provide HTML representations for HTTP GET requests
  • 1The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY provide Query Capabilities. This specification strengthens the requirement.
  • 2The OSLC Core Specification indicates service providers MAY support the OSLC Query Syntax. This specification makes OSLC Query Syntax support a MUST requirement for service providers providing query capabilities.
  • 3Support for all common HTTP methods is not required for all resources defined by this specification. See the HTTP Method support table for details.

Specification Versioning

See OSLC Core Specification Versioning section.

Namespaces

Defined

OSLC Performance Monitoring defines the namespace shown in the table below. This namespace URI and prefix are used to designate the resources and their properties defined in this specification.

Use of the suggested prefix is RECOMMENDED, because doing so aids debugging and other situations where humans read the data.

Suggested namespace prefix Namespace URI
pm http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#

Re-used from other specifications

In addition to the namespace URIs and namespace prefixes defined in the OSLC Core specification, OSLC Performance Monitoring also re-uses vocabulary terms from other namespaces. The namespace prefixes in the table below are used in this specification, and match the recommendations made by the specification that defines each.

Namespace prefix used Namespace URI Usage
ems http://open-services.net/ns/ems# Vocabulary is required for Performance Monitoring providers to expose metrics. Defined in the OSLC Estimation and Measurement domain.
crtv http://open-services.net/ns/crtv# Vocabulary is expected to be commonly used by Performance Monitoring providers, but is not required. Defined in the OSLC Reconciliation domain.

Resource Formats

In addition to the requirements for OSLC Defined Resource Representations, this section outlines further refinements and restrictions.

See HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

For HTTP GET requests on all OSLC Performance Monitoring and OSLC Core defined resource types,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML representations. If provided, the RDF/XML representation SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance for RDF/XML.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY provide XML and JSON representations. The XML and JSON representations SHOULD follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. Performance Monitoring Consumers requesting XML SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support an [X]HTML representation and a user interface (UI) preview as defined by UI Preview Guidance

For HTTP PUT/POST request formats for Performance Monitoring resources,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST accept RDF/XML representations and MAY accept XML representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting RDF/XML SHOULD be prepared for any valid RDF/XML document. If XML is accepted, Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.
  • Performance Monitoring Providers MAY accept XML and JSON representations. Performance Monitoring Providers accepting XML or JSON SHOULD be prepared for representations that follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance.

For HTTP GET response formats for Query requests,

  • Performance Monitoring Providers MUST provide RDF/XML and MAY provide JSON, XML, and Atom Syndication Format XML.

When Performance Monitoring Consumers request:

  • application/rdf+xml Performance Monitoring Providers MUST respond with RDF/XML representation without restrictions.
  • application/xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with OSLC-defined abbreviated XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • application/atom+xml Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD respond with Atom Syndication Format XML representation as defined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance
  • If supported, the Atom Syndication Format XML representation SHOULD use RDF/XML representation without restrictions for the atom:content entries representing the resource representations.

Authentication

See OSLC Core Authentication section. This specification puts no additional constraints on authentication.

Error Responses

See OSLC Core Error Responses section. This specification puts no additional constraints on error responses.

Pagination

Performance Monitoring Providers SHOULD support pagination of query results and MAY support pagination of a single resource’s properties as defined by the OSLC Core Specification.

Labels for Relationships

Relationships to other resources are represented as properties whose values are the URI of the object or target resource. When a relationship property is to be presented in a user interface, it may be helpful to provide an informative and useful textual label for that relationship instance. (This in addition to the relationship property URI and the object resource URI, which are also candidates for presentation to a user.) OSLC Core Links Guidance allows OSLC providers to support a dcterms:title link property in resource representations, using the anchor approach (reification), but this specification discourages its use (providers SHOULD NOT use it, and consumers SHOULD NOT depend on it). At the time this specification was written, the W3C RDF working group was on a path to remove reification from the next version of RDF, and it was noted that reification never was normatively defined even in the RDF/XML syntax W3C Recommendation, where it occurs informatively.

Resource Definitions

A list of properties is defined for each type of resource. Most of these properties are identified in OSLC Core Appendix A: Common Properties. Any exceptions are noted. Relationship properties refer to other resources. These resources MAY be any resource; that is, they MAY or MAY NOT be in any OSLC domain, including Performance Monitoring. Likewise, they MAY or MAY NOT be HTTP or RDF resources.

The diagram below shows an example of one way that a Performance Monitoring Record resource may relate to the resources it describes. With this option, the Performance Monitoring record uses the isPartOf predicate to refer to the monitored resource its describing.

Another option is described near the bottom of this specification in the section entitled [[Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines]].

[[Image:pm_domain8.JPG]]

For all resource types defined in this specification, all required properties (those defined with an occurrence of exactly-one or one-or-many) MUST exist for each resource and MUST be provided when requested. All other properties are optional, and might not exist on some or any resources; those that do not exist will not be present in the returned representation even if requested, while those that do exist MUST be provided if requested. Providers MAY define additional provider-specific properties; providers SHOULD use their own namespaces for such properties, or use standard Dublin Core or RDF namespaces and properties where appropriate.

If no specific set of properties is requested, all properties are returned - both those defined in this specification as well as any provider-specific ones. See Selective Property Values in the OSLC Core Specification.

Resource: Performance Monitoring Record

  • Name: PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Description: A resource representing performance monitoring information. This could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.
  • Type URI http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#PerformanceMonitoringRecord

PerformanceMonitoringRecord Properties

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Core: Common Properties
rdf:type zero-or-many unspecified Resource Reference n/a The resource type URIs (RDF).
dcterms:title zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a A name given to the resource (reference: Dublin Core). The title of the resource represented as rich text in XHTML content. Its value SHOULD include only content that is valid inside an XHTML <span> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:description zero-or-one unspecified XMLLiteral n/a n/a An account of the resource (Dublin Core). The value SHOULD be represented as rich text in XHTML syntax, and SHOULD include only content that is valid and suitable inside an XHTML <div> element (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:identifier zero-or-one True String n/a n/a An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context (Dublin Core). A unique identifier for a resource. Typically read-only and assigned by the service provider when a resource is created. Not typically intended for end-user display (OSLC Core - Common).
dcterms:created zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Timestamp of resource creation (Dublin Core)
dcterms:modified zero-or-one True DateTime n/a n/a Date on which the resource was changed (Dublin Core). Timestamp of latest resource modification (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:instanceShape zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ResourceShape A link to the resource’s OSLC Resource Shape that describes the possible properties, occurrence, value types, allowed values and labels. This shape information is useful in displaying the subject resource as well as guiding clients in performing modifications (OSLC Core - Common).
oslc:serviceProvider zero-or-one True Resource Reference oslc:ServiceProvider A link to the resource’s OSLC Service Provider (OSLC Core - Common).
Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
OSLC Performance Monitoring: Start of additional properties
dcterms:date zero-or-one True dateTime n/a n/a The time at which the record was collected (Dublin Core). Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide an explicit time zone facet value (Performance Monitoring). This requirement is necessary to avoid differences in interpretation between servers and clients in different time zones; it is functionally equivalent to using the dateTimeStamp datatype from XML Schema 1.1, but avoids any side effects on SPARQL queries.
ems:observes zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Something observed and measured about a resource (EMS). The ems:observes object will typically be of type ems:Measure, but it MAY be of any type (Core), (Core Links). When the resource is of type ems:Measure, that resource SHOULD contain an ems:Metric predicate whose object is of class pm:Metric (either directly or indirectly).
dcterms:isPartOf exactly-one True Resource Reference n/a A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included (Dublin Core). The related resource typically has one or more of the following types, although it MAY be of any type(s): crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent.

Resource: ems:Measure

The OSLC Estimation and Measurement (EMS) domain defines ems:Measure. This specification re-uses it without modifications, aside from defining additional metric subclasses in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary. Performance Monitoring Record instances will generally re-use units of measure from EMS and other vocabularies such as QUDT and dbpedia.

An example instance, that conveys "Real Memory Utilization"=50% using Turtle syntax, might be:

@prefix pm:     <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .
@prefix oslc:   <http://open-services.net/ns/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ems:    <http://open-services.net/ns/ems#> .
@prefix dbp:    <http://dbpedia.org/resource/>.

@base <http://perfmon-provider.example.org/> .

<rec001#realmemutil50>
            a                    ems:Measure ; # rdf:type
            dcterms:title        "Real Memory Utilization" ;
            ems:metric           <pm:RealMemoryUsed> ;
            ems:unitOfMeasure    <dbp:Percentage> ;
            ems:numericValue     50 ;
.

Equivalent RDF/XML for the preceding example:

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" 
        xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
        xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" 
        xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/" 
        xmlns:qudt="http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt"
        xmlns:pm="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" 
        xmlns:ems="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#">

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://perfmon-provider.example.org/rec001#realmemutil50">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/ems#Measure" />
    <dcterms:title>Real Memory Utilization</dcterms:title>
    <ems:metric rdf:resource="pm:RealMemoryUsed" />
    <ems:unitOfMeasure rdf:resource="dbp:Percentage" />
    <ems:numericValue rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#double">
    50</ems:numericValue>
  </rdf:Description>

  </rdf:RDF>

Metric Categories

This specification introduces metric categories, which loosely correspond to the major headings on the EMS working groups Key Software Metrics page: size, schedule, effort, and quality, derived. As the EMS work shows, categorization itself is not unique to Performance Monitoring. As was done in EMS, the categories defined by this specification are exposed to consumers via RDF Schema subclass annotations in the vocabulary document; an example is shown later in this section.

Exposing each metric’s categorization in the vocabulary definition serves several purposes:

  1. Clients can query for a subset of all metrics exposed in the PerformanceMonitoringRecord without having to enumerate the members of the subset explicitly.
  2. Implementations and other specifications can define new metrics and categorize them, allowing clients unaware of the new metrics’ property names to introspect some information that might influence how they are presented in a user interface.

A summary of the inheritance tree for categories defined by this specification is shown below. This shows, for example, that pm:ResourceUsageMetrics is a subclass of pm:Metric. Please consult the vocabulary document for the authoritative set of relationships.

* `pm:Metric`
    * `pm:CpuMetrics`
    * `pm:DiskMetrics`
    * `pm:MemoryMetrics`
        * `pm:BufferPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:NetworkMetrics`
    * `pm:RequestMetrics`
        * `pm:FailureMetrics`
        * `pm:ResponseTimeMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceAvailabilityMetrics`
    * `pm:ResourceUsageMetrics`
        * `pm:ResourceExhaustionMetrics`
    * `pm:ThreadPoolMetrics`
    * `pm:VirtualizationMetrics`

As with RDF types, categories are additive and potentially multi-valued. In other words, a given metric may be a member of as many classes as are semantically sensible. The hierarchy summarized above is useful to reduce redundancy only. For example, if a given metric is defined to be in the category pm:FailureMetrics, then it is redundant (although technically permissible) to define it to be in the category pm:RequestMetrics as well. Specific metrics like pm:RealMemoryUsed are associated with metric categories via the vocabulary document for the namespace by annotating the rdfs:Class with rdfs:subClassOf; the following example shows how to categorize pm:RealMemoryUsed as a resource usage metric and as a memory metric.

In RDF/XML syntax:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">

  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed">
        <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#" />
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics"/>
        <rdfs:label>RealMemoryUsed</rdfs:label>
        <rdfs:comment>Real memory used.</rdfs:comment>
  </rdfs:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

In Turtle syntax:

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix pm: <http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#> .

<http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RealMemoryUsed> a rdfs:Class ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy pm: ;
    rdfs:subClassOf pm:ResourceUsageMetrics , pm:MemoryMetrics ;
    rdfs:label "RealMemoryUsed" ;
    rdfs:comment "Real memory used." .
Table of Performance Metric Category URIs

This is the set of RDFS Classes that are all of the following:

  • sub-classes of ems:Metric (directly or indirectly)
  • serve to define categories of metrics
  • are actually sub-classed in the current vocabulary by more specific metrics, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime.

In other words, they are “leaf” RDFS Classes that group set of metrics. Leaf classes, like pm:AvgJmsGetTime, are defined exactly like the categories in the table, and could be used as metric categories themselves by other vocabularies or implementations that sub-class them.

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#BufferPoolMetrics Metric category for buffer pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#CpuMetrics Metric category for CPU-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#DiskMetrics Metric category for disk-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#FailureMetrics Metric category for requests that fail.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#MemoryMetrics Metric category for memory-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Metric Metric category for metrics defined in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NetworkMetrics Metric category for network-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#RequestMetrics Metric category for requests on a resource, originating from an end user or a system component.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceAvailabilityMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource availability.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceExhaustionMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource consumption in excess of capacity.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResourceUsageMetrics Metric category for metrics that show resource usage.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ResponseTimeMetrics Metric category for metrics that show time it takes for a response to be returned to a request.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#ThreadPoolMetrics Metric category for thread pool-related metrics.
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#VirtualizationMetrics Metric category for virtualization-related resource metrics.

Resource Properties

In addition to resource definitions, this specification defines properties below that can occur in any RDF resource. In the scenarios currently addressed, they are most commonly used with resources of types such as the following, but this list is exemplary, not limiting: crtv:Process, crtv:StorageVolume, crtv:ComputerSystem, crtv:SoftwareServer, crtv:Database, crtv:SoftwareModule, crtv:ResourcePool, foaf:Agent. Not all properties will be semantically sensible with all resource types.

Prefixed Name Occurs Read-only Value-type Representation Range Description
pm:process zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A process running, for example, in a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:ComputerSystem, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:disk zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a A disk attached, for example, to a computer system. Typically refers to a resource with type crtv:ComputerSystem, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:monitoringAgent zero-or-many True Resource Either n/a Software that monitors a resource’s availability, performance, capacity, or utilization. Typically refers to a resource with type foaf:Agent, but it MAY refer to other resource types.
pm:mobilityEnabled zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a An indication about whether the resource, for example a virtual computer system, can move about dynamically.
pm:tableReorganizationNeeded zero-or-one True boolean Inline n/a Indicates whether a database’s tables need to be reorganized.
pm:availabilityStatus zero-or-many True Resource Reference n/a An indication of availability. If any value is present, then at least one of them MUST be from the list of URIs defined below. Additional values MAY be present from other namespaces, e.g. to provide more detailed product-specific status. All values present SHOULD be semantically compatible.

Availability Status Property Values

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers can identify the availabilityStatus using references to property values in the OSLC Performance Monitoring vocabulary or to property values that are not in the Performance Monitoring vocabulary (i.e. in the service provider’s own vocabulary). It is expected that the availabilityStatus values will be URI references to property values, but inline resources defining the availabilityStatus property values are also valid.

The resource shape governs occurrence constraints within PM. They say 0:* pm:availabilityStatus.

Hence:

  • if a provider has >= 1 pm:availabilityStatus predicate, then

    • all objects must be non-conflicting

    • at least one of them must be from the PM vocabulary so that clients knowing ONLY the PM spec are “guaranteed” to find at least one value useful.

The property values for pm:availabilityStatus are:

URI Description
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#NotRunning Not running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Running Running in its host environment
http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon#Unknown Unknown

Performance Monitoring Service Provider Capabilities

Service Discovery and Description

Resource Shapes

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY support Resource Shapes as defined in OSLC Core Specification Appendix A

Service Provider Resource

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a Service Provider Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog Resource that can be retrieved at a implementation dependent URI.

Performance Monitoring service providers MUST provide a oslc:serviceProvider property for their defined resources that will be the URI to a Service Provider Resource.

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD expose resource types of type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord. Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD include the type pm:PerformanceMonitoringRecord on all resources that contain performance monitoring information.

Creation Factories

If an OSLC Performance Monitoring service provider supports the creation of resources, there MUST be at least one Creation Factory entry in its Services definition.

See the HTTP Method support table for further clarification on support for HTTP methods and media types for each OSLC Performance Monitoring resource.

Query Capabilities

There SHOULD be at least one Query Capability entry in the Services definition.

The Query Capability MUST support the oslc.where parameter and SHOULD support the oslc.select parameter. If the oslc.where parameter is supported, then the oslc.prefix parameter MUST be supported.

If shape information is NOT present with the Query Capability, service providers SHOULD use the default properties defined in OSLC Core RDF/XML Examples to contain the result.

Delegated UIs

OSLC Performance Monitoring service providers support the selection and creation of Performance Monitoring resources as defined by Delegated UIs in OSLC Core.

Performance Monitoring providers support requirements for delegated UIs as follows:

Performance Monitoring Resource Selection Creation
PerformanceMonitoringRecord SHOULD MAY

Service Provider HTTP Method Support

Support for all HTTP methods in the compliance table is not required for all Performance Monitoring resources. The following table summarizes the requirements for each resource definition, HTTP method, and media type combination. A value of N/A means this specification does not impose any constraints on it.

Resource RDF/XML XML JSON HTML Other
Performance Monitoring Record
GET MUST MAY SHOULD SHOULD MAY
PUT MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
POST MAY MAY MAY N/A MAY
DELETE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Performance Monitoring service providers SHOULD support deletion of any resources for which they allow creation.

Performance Monitoring Specification Guidelines

(this section is informative)

Linking a Performance Monitoring Record to the Resource it Describes

In addition to a Performance Monitoring Record having a predicate to refer to the monitored resource is is part of using pm:isPartOf, a Performance Monitoring record may be a class type for a monitored resource, such that the pm:isPartOf predicate value refers to itself as the object value.

Extending Metrics

  • Choose the correct metric categor(ies) for your metric.
  • Decide whether your class should be part of the ‘perfmon’ namespace or a private namespace.
  • Create an RDFS class for your metric.
  • Create an instance of a PerformanceMonitoringRecord
  • Put a timestamp on it to indicate when it was collected
  • Put an ems:observes predicate in your PerformanceMonitoringRecord and have it refer to an ems:Measure instance
  • Use your metric in the ems:Measure instance
  • Use ems:unitOfMeasure to specify whether the metric is a rate, a ratio, a quantity, a time, etc.
  • Relate PerformanceMonitoringRecord to monitored resource using isPartOf property

Appendix A: Samples

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix A: Samples]]

Appendix B: Resource Shapes

(this section is informative)

See [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Appendix B: Resource Shapes]]

Appendix C: Notices and References

Contributors

Janet Andersen, Jim Conallen, John Arwe, Julie Bielski, Michael Fiedler, Steve Speicher, Tuan Dang

Reporting Issues on the Specification

The working group participants who author and maintain this working draft specification, monitor a distribution list where issues or questions can be raised, see Performance Monitoring Mailing List

Also the issues found with this specification and their resolution can be found at [[OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 Issues]].

Authors and Contact Information

License and Intellectual Property

We make this specification available under the terms and conditions set forth in the site Terms of Use, IP Policy, and the Workgroup Participation Agreement for this Workgroup.

References

]]> Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:06 EDT <![CDATA[Common Resource Type Vocabulary Version 2.0]]> John Arwe http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Common-Resource-Type-Vocabulary-Version-2.0/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Common-Resource-Type-Vocabulary-Version-2.0/#When:1367259967

Note: This vocabulary was originally part of the Performance Monitoring workgroup. It was moved to the Reconciliation workgroup as it is more applicable to the work done here.

Browse to current content





















]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:26 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1367251908 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:11 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1367251801 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_-_Orb_Data.xslx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:10 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1367251665 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Ben Fawcett - ben.fawcett@orb-data.com
  • Product version number : 4.4

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Orb Data Self-service portal is a provider and a consumer
  • SSP shows UI previews from all providers
  • For the IBM Tivoli Monitoring provider, the Orb Data Self-service portal uses the performance monitoring data to produce charts showing the live state of each system.

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation Report - Orb Data.xslx]]

Issues:

  1. None.

Worked well:

  1. The data was well-formatted and easy to chart.

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:07 EDT <![CDATA[ImplementationReports]]> julieb http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/ http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/ImplementationReports/#When:1366402562 [TOC]

This document records Implementation Reports for providers and consumers of the OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0 specification.

Consumers

Orb Data

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number :

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. TBD

Worked well:

  1. TBD

Icaro

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Fernando Moraes, Guilherme Nunes, Daniel Bernardes, Rodrigo Koga, Vitor Carvalho - email ped-list@icarotech.com
  • Product version number : 2.0 R3 S7 (Beta)

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • Icaro has built an integration of its Advanced Dashboards 2.0 product to OSLC-compliant Configuration Item information providers.
  • One of the providers tested was the ITM Performance Monitoring product.
  • Scenario is: when a user clicks on a specific configuration item on a list at the Dashboard, a drill-down screen shows the Performance information related to that particular configuration item, from ITM Performance Monitoring. (see video below)

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report_Icaro.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.
  2. A video demonstrating the integration can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-_0X58Nyo

Tivoli Business Service Manager

Contact Information:

  • Contacts:
  • Product version number : v 6.1.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • TBSM queried the ITM performance monitoring provider for metric information about ComputerSystem, SoftwareServer, Database, ServiceInstance, and StorageVolume resources, represented as UI previews in the TBSM user interface.

Table of supported capabilities: See

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

  1. The integration shows ITM data inside a dashboard widget.

Providers

IBM Tivoli Monitoring

Contact Information:

  • Contacts: Clyde Foster, Janet Andersen
  • Product version number : v6.3 ( 1Q2013 release date )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Performance Monitoring 2.0
  • The Performance Monitoring service provider of IBM Tivoli Monitoring registers ComputerSystem, IPAddress, SoftwareServer, SoftwareModule, Database, and ServerAccessPoint resources with the Registry Services component of Jazz for Service Management on behalf of monitoring agents.
  • It responds to consumer queries of these resources with metric data whose resources are documented in the Performance Monitoring 2.0 vocabulary

Table of supported capabilities: See [[File:Implementation_Report.xlsx]]

Issues:

  1. None

Worked well:

*

Product name and version ( TEMPLATE - copy this section, edit and append )

Contact information:

  • Contacts: Your Name ( or many names if multiple contacts )
  • Product version number ( indicate approximate future release date if not already released )

Details about support:

  • OSLC Reconciliation 2.0
  • Indicate if you are a provider or consumer
  • Describe how you are exploiting the Reconciliation specification
  • List any exceptions or partial support

Table of supported capabilities: See ( get spreadsheet from workgroup lead and fill out )

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • List any details about your specific implementation that would not be noted in either the section above or in the spreadsheet

Issues:

  1. List any issue you have with this specification and note how the workgroup wll resolve

Worked well:

  • Describe items that worked well during your implementation
]]> Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:16 EDT