Hi Sandeep
1. You are correct, there is an inconsistency here. I don't have a good explanation here as to why we did not have a dedicated containment association for ServiceSpec and ResourceSpec. The expected behavior would be to use the SpecRelationship with role Containment or Child or similar.
I could try to claim that there is in general much less containment in Service and Resource as against Product, but I don't have evidence to back that up.
If you think that this is a serious problem in the model we could consider opening a CR to add the dedicated containment association.
2. An example of a containment relationship in resource spec might be a physical resource for a rack, where the contained resources would be cards mounted in the rack.
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.
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Dec 05, 2019 10:29
From: Sandeep Munde
Subject: Regarding "isBundle" field at Resource/Service Specification Level
Hi All,
I have question regarding "isBundle" field at Resource/Service Specification level in TMF633 & TMF634 Open API document;
1. "isBundle" boolean field is there but block mentioning "bundledServiceSpecification"/"bundledResourceSpecification" where actually we relates with other Specification is missing. The similar block is present at Product Specification and Product Offering level with name "bundledProductSpecification" and "bundledProductOffering" respectively
2. Also do we have any example(s) stating the use of bundle functionality at Resource/Service Specification Level.
Thanks & Regards,
------------------------------
Sandeep Munde
Tech Mahindra Limited
------------------------------