A suggestion: let's place the topic of monitoring on the next confcall. Regarding the simple model, rather than placed in the appendix, this should in fact form the core of the specification with things related to monitoring workflows building upon subsequently detailed.

Andy Edmonds Æ

Senior Researcher

Institute of Information Technology

Zürich University of Applied Sciences

http://www.cloudcomp.ch, @dizz

On 2 April 2013 18:10, Augusto Ciuffoletti <augusto@di.unipi.it> wrote:

Hi all,

here following is a short memo I did for myself about last call. I can add further points, if needed: please let me know.

Subtyping vs Collection: in the document the collection is used to denote a subtyping relationship between mixins: this is inconsistent with sect. 4.4.8 in the core document (collection is for instances). Use subtyping/related as defined in 4.4.4 in the core document. Add a statement about this in the doc.

The simplest case has an interest since it models existing cases (like Cloudwatch). Maybe I will add an appendix with the figures illustrated in the paper, but avoiding volatile references.

I did not reply to a question about how to browse a mixin sub-type. There is one bug: AggregatorSet instead of "Computetool" in the "POST". In fact the example is incomplete in that respect, and an example should be added to the document. Although conceptually clear, the exact format for a query is not explicit in the documents I know. Basically this is a GET with a filter: my guess is the following.

> GET /-/monitoring/aggregatorset HTTP/1.1
> ...
> term = "threshold"

Not very powerful, but probably good for the task. Right?

Bye

Augusto

--
Augusto Ciuffoletti
Dipartimento di Informatica
Università di Pisa
56100 - Pisa (Italy)

_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg