Proposal: Add service.owner entity

[jpkrohling]

Proposal: Formalize service.owner Entity

We have observed a common pattern where users utilize resource attributes to annotate services with ownership information, such as source code location and team communication channels. While service.namespace exists for logical grouping, it does not explicitly convey organizational ownership or contact details.

I propose formalizing this concept by introducing a service.owner entity. This would standardize how we define service ownership, enabling better automation for notifications, incident response, and diagnostics.

Proposed Attributes

I suggest the following attributes for the service.owner entity:

• service.owner.name: The name of the team or individual responsible for the service (e.g., "Checkout Team").
• service.owner.scm: The source control management URL or identifier (e.g., link to the GitHub repository).
• service.owner.chat (or service.owner.contact?): The chat channel or contact point for the team (e.g., Slack channel URL or name).

This aligns with the original vision from the service and deployment semconv SIG. I'd love to hear thoughts on this structure and if there are other common ownership attributes we should consider.

[bixu]

I believe service.owner.contact is preferable to service.owner.chat, as some teams might prefer a web-baed Helpdesk or email address, for example.

[smith]

.url seems more flexible than .scm. Not sure about the use case that inspired this, but I'd image people would want to link to like a Backstage Group or a page that might not be associated with source control, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.