Hi Madhan
Please consult the Design Guidelines at
https://projects.tmforum.org/wiki/display/PUB/TMF630+API+Design+Guidelines+3.0+R17.5.1 . Part 2 gives some coverage of this topic.
In the example that you quote, presumably the
account attribute is defined as
AccountRef in the containing spec - and it is actually pointing to the
BillingAccount subclass. It is rare that someone would want to extend a Ref class, hence the other @ attributes are not shown as populated in this example.
For examples where @ attributes are populated, take a look at TMF633 Service Catalog, you will see there (for example) for a service specification that is actually an RFS something that looks like this:
"id": "7655",
"href": "https://mycsp.com:8080/tmf-api/serviceCatalogManagement/v4/serviceSpecification/7655",
"name": "Firewall Service",
...
"@type": "ResourceFacingServiceSpecification",
"@schemaLocation": "https://mycsp.com:8080/tmf-api/schema/Service/ResourceFacingServiceSpecification.schema.json",
"@baseType": "ServiceSpecification"
Hope it helps
------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------