Agenda Discuss spec review comments from Jim and Steve (11/30/2012)

Minutes 1. In the scenarios (separate reference), and throughout the spec the term ‘resource’ is used to refer to the things that are being monitored. We take this to be a term in the domain (i.e. web app server). This term is also used across the OSLC to represent the things being passed in and out of the REST calls. A word of explanation of this might be useful for the first time reader. Resolution: Julie updated spec to be more clear

1. What is a ‘resource registry’ can this term be defined better? Resolution: Julie updated spec with a definition

2. Typos in query support section.
   “The Query Capability MUST the oslc:where parameter and SHOULD support the oslc:select parameter:” This sentence ends with a colon. missing a word between ‘MUST’ and ‘the’. Query parameters have dots not colons in them (oslc:where should be oslc.where). The oslc.prefix MUST supported if the full syntax of the oslc.where is (required when specifying properties, full URI can not be used). Resolution: Julie fixed the typos

3. If other query syntaxes are supported, how does the client know what they are? The OSLC Core provides no guidance on query syntax other than simple query. There are a number of things a PerfMon provider may do, not sure it is worth listing all. Recommend getting rid of that MAY section altogether. Resolution: Julie removed the MAY section

4. This spec depends on other specifications that have not finalized (ESM and Recon). Either coordinate the finalization with or after the dependent specs, or remove the dependency on these specs.
   Resolution: Still open

5. Why does spec guidance provide prefix suggestions for other domains? It may be appropriate to suggest a prefix for the perfmon domain, but not others. It is expected define prefixes that are used throughout the rest of the spec, but not so suggest that others use them. The namespaces section should look more like the other specs and just state: “In addition to the namespace URIs and namespace prefixes defined in the OSLC Core specification, OSLC Performance Monitoring defines the namespace URI of http://open-services.net/ns/perfmon# with a namespace prefix of pm.” Resolution: Still open

6. dcterms:isPartOf has an occurs value of “one-or-one”. Should this be exactly-one? Resolution: Julie changed to “exactly-one”

7. In the samples Turtle is used. Turtle is never even mentioned in the specification. Recommend either include turtle as a MAY representation in the spec, or remove it from the samples. Resolution: None yet

8. Reporting-Issues-on-the-Specification The Issues link is to a non-existent page.

   Resolution: Julie added an Issues page

9. In the sample the property dcterms:date is used, and in the spec it is specified as xsd:dateTime. In the sample it is not typed, and looks like a string. Resolution: None yet

10. Contributors Commas between the contributors names. Or does Janet have a lot of middle names?

    Reslution: Julie fixed the formatting

11. Performance-Monitoring-Specification-Guidelines Recommend that the Guidelines section either provide a lot more useful information or pull it, as it does not seem to provide much useful information. We couldn’t make much sense out of how it would be applied and there are two sections that are empty

    Resolution: Julie added text to clarify this section

12. Appendix-B.3A-Resource-Shapes Shapes appendix is empty.

    Resolution: Julie to add resource shape examples

13. Intellectual-Property-Covenant The patent non-assert document is missing or unlinked

    Resolution: Julie to email Steve or Lee R. for document and add it

14. Common Resource Type Vocabulary is not a recommended or good name. It overloads the term “resource”, will raise separately with Recon WG. We should not propagate this name but work with them to resolve it. Resolution: N/A

15. PMR is used but never defined. Mixture of casing of such as PerformandMonitoringRecord (no prefix) , etc suggest consistently referring to the resource or the class name Resolution: Julie udpated all instances to be consistently PerformanceMonitoringRecord

16. Mixture of formatting issues: MUST/MAY/SHOULD not always BOLD, etc Resolution: Julie fixed formatting

17. Intro mentions IT, be good to define the acronym for completeness Resolution: Julie spelled out acronym

18. Why are last 2 of 4 scenarios in table have no data in table? http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Performance-Monitoring-Scenarios/#Current-Iteration-Scenarios Resolution: None yet

19. http://open-services.net/wiki/performance-monitoring/Scenario-Coverage-Report/ missing business goal like other scenarios (or some intro upfront text) Resolution: None yet

20. #Terminology definition of PMR is quite thin, be good to pull up some of the text from the more detailed PMR definition like “This could be numeric metrics, status, or some other kind of property of interest to monitoring consumers.” Resolution: Julie added more text to definition

21. Resource-Definitions Not sure what these sentences are saying about a predicate “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 monitored resource has a Performance Monitoring record as a predicate.”

    Resolution: Julie clarified text

22. Resource-Definitions 1st paragraph is redundant with 2nd to last in the context of “Providers MAY define additional provider-specific properties; providersSHOULD use their own namespaces for such properties, or use standard Dublin Core or RDF namespaces and properties where appropriate.”. Recommend removing 1st paragraph.

    Resolution: Julie removed first paragraph

23. Performance_Monitoring_Record

    rdf:type – at least should include perfmon:PerformanceMonitoringRecord, right? Resolution: None yet

    ems:observes – read the description a couple times and still not sure I get it. …about a resource “EMS” – what is resource EMS? …MAY be of any type Core – what does it mean to be of any type Core? When it refers to “the resource” talking about the subject or object resource? Resolution: Julie clarified on the phone

24. Resource.3A-ems.3AMeasure The Turtle example has a weird trailing ; and then ., suggest removing the ;. There is an unneeded comment “# rdf:type”. Note: the turtle samples in the appendix have the same problem. It would be good to add the @prefix definitions to make it a valid Turtle doc.

    Resolution: None yet

25. Metric-Categories consider Turtle example. Also RDFS is used and not defined.

    Resolution: None yet

26. Resource-Properties

    pm:mobilityEnabled – the description had me wanting more. I’m mobile, would I be a valid value for this property? Not sure what “move about dynamically” means Resolution: Julie added example of virtual machine to the spec pm:availabilityStatus – “All values present MUST be semantically compatible” how do I know if I do or don’t conform to this? Resolution: Julie changed the MUST to SHOULD