[1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/PmAppMonitoring
Q1.1: mentions a central registry ... is that implementation detail or something within the intended scope of the Perf Mon specs? Q1.2: mentions "reconciled" a few times ... is that implementation detail or something within the intended scope of the Perf Mon specs? Any intended relationship to the reconciliation working group that Core approved two weeks ago at my request? Q1.3: "OSLC client will dynamically determine the current providers" ... is that implementation detail or something within the intended scope of the Perf Mon specs? Q1.4: "An application health consumer queries for monitoring information" ... is "health" some other domain? Perf Mon? Q1.5: What is the relationship between Steps and Detailed Steps? There are 5 steps in each, but they do not appear to directly correspond. Q1.6: detailed steps mentions "resource registry" ... is that implementation detail or something within the intended scope of the Perf Mon specs? Q1.7: detailed steps 2 and children seem to be switching URLs. At first it's a monitoring SP URL (so it probably links to a oslc:ServiceProvider resource) that you want a UI preview for, then in 2.2 it's a "target resource" that appears to be separate from the SP. Q1.8: detailed steps 3 talks about HTML inside a compact XML document, which is not how OSLC Core's UI preview handshake works. Q1.9: detailed steps 3.1 maps to an internal resource name ... I'm guessing this is implementation detail, not something Perf Mon intends to spec? Q1.10 Are there any specific data/metrics that need to be in the domain spec in order to meet this scenario (e.g. all/some of those in the UI preview table...which)? Or is the intent to leave the particular metrics/definitions to the implementation, and limit the spec to defining how the implementation's metrics are introspected at run time? Or a bit of both? Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
