Hello,
I have a general question around the RefOrValue pattern & API documentation itself:
Taking TMF645 as an example, we have there the element ServiceRefOrValue.
Within the QueryServiceQualification resource, we can see below association:
QueryServiceQualification ==(searchCriteria/serviceQualificationItem)==> ServiceQualificationItem ==(service)==> ServiceRefOrValue..
So, it's clear that ServiceQualificationItem will point to a Service element either by reference or by value (i.e.: usage is clear).
Anyways, in the specification, we can see that:
- ServiceRefOrValue is explicitly declared in the API. So, in this API documentation, in theory we have a predefined @type for ServiceRefOrValue.
- ServiceRef is
not explicitly declared in the API. So, in this API documentation, we
don't have a predefined @type for ServiceRef.
- Service element is
not explicitly declared in the API. So, in this API documentation, we
don't have a predefined @type for Service.
Question is:
When returning a ServiceRefOrValue, which @baseType & @type should we use?
Seems rational to think that we should forget about the refOrValue notation and use @type & @baseType pointing to either
reference or value element (e.g.: @type = ServiceRef, @baseType = Service...)
But, existing API documentation may lead us to use ServiceRefOrValue under @type and, under @baseType as we have no examples.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Marcos Donato da Silva
Ericsson Inc.
------------------------------