ISSUE-184: Is an dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement a kind of certificate, or a standard?

Hi all,

I read what has been discussed re: ISSUE-184 and I agree with general
opinion that dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement is neither a certificate, nor a
standard.

Based on the definitions of  ITIL v3 [1] and ISO 20000 [2], I understand a
ServiceLevelAgreement [3] as an agreement between two parties such as the
service provider and the consumer. It can be part of the contract/charter
and describes (or promise) the relationship or the level of service
expected by the provider.

With respect to finding a class to base dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement, I agree
with Antoine that ODRL Policy [4] could be an option. We could also look at
its more concrete two sub-classes Offer [5] and Agreement [6]. But I have
the impression ODRL is bit more focused on rights that the consumer get
rather than the level of service the consumer expects from the provider. I
will talk to Víctor Rodríguez Doncel from my group (who is also an author
of the ODRL ontology) to see if they can provider an example of how to
model a service level agreement in ODRL. https://schema.org/Offer is a bit
more less specialized as Antonie says yet more specific than a general
document, so it is a good option too.

Other ontologies that model similar concepts:
http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms?q=Agreement
http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms?q=Offer

ITSMO IT Service Management Ontology models the concrete concepts SLA and
OLA.
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1/itsmo.html#term_Agreement
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1/itsmo.html#term_SLA
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1/itsmo.html#term_OLA

Beyond the base class, dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement could be related to
quality metrics too because the service level agreements might include KPIs
as such as quality metrics, for example, that the provider promises >99%
availability, 100% completeness with respect to a agreed criteria, etc. It
could also have some relation with dqv:QualityCertificate because it might
be able to prove the fulfillment of the SLA with a certificate about the
levels of metrics included in the SLA. However, I am not sure whether those
relations are generic enough to be reflected in the model.

So, regarding the proposals
* I think SLA is not a standard and the current subclass relation
"dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement is rdfs:subClassOf dcterms:Standard" can be
removed.
* We can send an email to the authors of the ODRL Ontology to check if they
think ODRL fits for describing service level agreements.
* or use schema:Offer

Finally, whichever we choose I think we can provide one good example in the
document to illustrate their use so that readers have guidance on how to
use that class and also we can further evaluate the goodness-of-fit.

Best Regards,
Nandana

[1] http://www.best-management-practice.com/gempdf/itil_glossary_v3_1_24.pdf
[2]
http://www.praxiom.com/iso-20000-definitions.htm#3.29_Service_level_agreement_(SLA)
[3]
http://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133936/Service-Level-Agreements.pdf
[4] http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21#term-Policy
[5] http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21#sec-example-2
[6] http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/ODRL21#sec-example-3