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

Hi Makx,

Yes, I agree as it is defined in DCTerms it can be a superclass of
agreement as it is defined much broader than the "standard" that is
commonly understood as a result of work in “standardization bodies”. So
probably with respect to the semantics, though it might lead to some
confusion for human-readers. Having said that, I am *not* strongly opposing
the use of it and ok with what the WG decides.

Best Regards,
Nandana

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> Nandana, all,
>
>
>
> I am not quite sure why a dqv:ServiceLevelAgreement cannot be a
> subproperty of dct:Standard.
>
>
>
> The definition of dct:Standard is “A basis for comparison; a reference
> point against which other things can be evaluated”. The criticism of this
> definition could be that it does not say what it **is** but only how you
> can **use** it.
>
>
>
> However, I think that this definition is sufficiently general to include
> the idea of an SLA. An SLA will provide information, like KPIs, against
> which a customer can evaluate a service. The definition of dct:Standard can
> also include “certificate” and “contract” if you want.
>
>
>
> An instance of the class dct:Standard does not have to be “standard” in
> the sense of the result of work in “standardization bodies”.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nandana Mihindukulasooriya [mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es]
> *Sent:* 24 September 2015 10:36
> *To:* Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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
>