Hi
From a business perspective (according to my understanding anyway) it doesn't make sense to have a service candidate that does not point to a specification. Take for example this description from the SID model:
A ServiceCandidate is an entity that makes a ServiceSpecification available to a catalog. A ServiceCandidate and its associated ServiceSpecification may be "published" (made visible) in any number of ServiceCatalogs, or in none. One ServiceSpecification can be composed of other ServiceSpecifications. These ServiceSpecifications may also be published.
Having said that, also in the SID the association cardinality is actually 0..1.
So it probably needs more thought and discussion within the API team, and perhaps with the SID leads, to clarify what is correct.
@Cecile Ludwichowski and
@Kamal Maghsoudlou might have what to say here.
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: Oct 28, 2020 01:00
From: Daniel Lauxtermann
Subject: 633 - Service Candidate and Service Specification Association
I guess the conformance profile is right and the diagram needs an update. Looking forward to read the answers from the experts/authors.
------------------------------
Daniel Lauxtermann
Glasfaser NordWest GmbH & Co .KG
Original Message:
Sent: Oct 27, 2020 21:43
From: Uma Lakshman
Subject: 633 - Service Candidate and Service Specification Association
Hi,
As per the 633 v4.0 documentation , a service candidate can be associated to 0 or 1 specification as in below UML.
Please let us know which one reflects the correct cardinality.
cc: @Rati Mehrotra
------------------------------
Uma Lakshman
Telstra Corporation
------------------------------