Revisit system cpu attributes

[ChrsMark]

After #89 is merged we need to revisit the system.cpu.* attributes and specifically the the system.cpu.logical_number as described at #89 (comment).

The idea here is that we should be consistent with the namespace that we use for the resource attributes. To my mind it should be host.cpu.logical_number similarly to to the host.id etc.

Related to #308.

The goal of this is to ensure that we preserve a unified way for reporting metrics and resource attributes as part of the system and host namespaces.

This is what #226 (comment) and #324 try to address.

Also related to #130 and its implementation PRs.

cc: @open-telemetry/semconv-system-approvers

[mx-psi]

The idea here is that we should be consistent with the namespace that we use for the resource attributes. To my mind it should be host.cpu.logical_number similarly to to the host.id etc.

Just a small clarification: AIUI system.cpu.logical_number is not a resource attribute, but a metric attribute. I am in favor of being consistent between metric/span/log attributes namespacing and resource attribute namespacing but we need to be clear about this rule then!

[ChrsMark]

I see @mx-psi! So based on this the system.cpu.logical_number is fine as it is now?

My concern was mostly about unifying the way we represent the attributes whenever is possible.

For example in that case we have the system.cpu.logical_number attribute for the metrics, but what if we would like to split host's metadata in the future per cpu's core_id? Would we introduce another one like host.cpu.logical_number?

So to my mind we could just use host.cpu.logical_number in both cases since the metric's attribute can be reflected as the resource's attribute as well.

[mx-psi]

Sorry for not replying on the issue, are there any questions remaining here? From the SIG I think what we discussed was that we will use the host namespace on the resource attribute and the system one for metrics. Is that a fair summary?

[ChrsMark]

From the SIG I think what we discussed was that we will use the host namespace on the resource attribute and the system one for metrics. Is that a fair summary?

I think it would bring less confusion to keep it like this!

Feel free to close it @mx-psi :)