[3] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/PmScenarioCoverageReport
Q3.1: Monitoring is only a part of the pre-conditions here. Also pre-supposed is discovery (not a domain that I'm aware of, unless you mean Asset Mgmt). Was it the intent to address this entire scenario in the Perf Mon wg, or only the monitoring subset of it (seems more likely)? This seems like a pretty good fit for the new Reconciliation wg. Q3.2: If the intent is to solve only the monitoring-relevant subset in Perf Mon: I see a new (versus other scenarios) potential requirement elicited to define a predicate to link -to- (not from) a performance monitoring record. I'm hesitant to go down that path; I'd lean toward letting the domain defining the record that contains the link define the predicate name(s) to use. What was the intent here? Q3.3: There is another requirement called out more explicitly here but I think baked into several of the other scenarios implicitly: performance data does not exist in isolation, it describes some other "observable" resource that is conceptually at least separate from the observed performance data. As we often talk about it, it's performance data "about" X, and probably (although often implicitly) at some point in time. That link certainly seems to make sense for Perf Mon to define. I'm not so sure Perf Mon would be capable to defining all the "X"s in the universe though, so the link's range would seem to be open. Was that the intent? Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
