TM Forum Community

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

@David Milham @Jonathan Goldberg and other experts - wish to get your view on a topic ...  IG1233  recommends not to use Composite Product Specification and i believe rational for this could be lack of support / introduction of cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and also TMF 620 and TMF 622.  

Currently composability is  recommended at Offering layer with support of cardinality at this layer by TMF however this enforces indirectly  for not composing PS and rather creating Offering for every atomic PS to achieve flexibility of composition but this results into many technical ( non - sellable Offers).

Many modern COTS packages have been extending TMF SID and APIs to enable cardinality at Composite Product Spec as this gives more flexibility and agility with a choice of composition at both PO and PS layer.

Wanted to know your perspective about this and what's the reason for TMF not introducing cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and is there any plan / possibility of introducing it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Regards, Ashish

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

My recollection of the discussion  was input from both BT and Orange. The rationale was that making Product specs a restriction of a service spec (CFSS) and allowing composition solely at the product offering and CFS level meant that the Product Factory  e.g.  network designer propose a service - which when  a composed CFS - means they will have designed and tested that the combination of Networks, Compute and storage do work together at the required scale. Moreover operational responsibility for the correct operation of the network service lies solely with the networks designer/ ODA Production. If you compose network services across the Core Commerce Production boundary the product manager has to take responsible for the end to end operation of the individual network parts and this complicates the operational  repair/ assurance  responsibility it is shared and generally the product neither have the skills nor the tools to establish which part of the composed product is not working . That being said this is a best practice not a mandated  principle.

@Milind Bhagwat  @Sylvie Demarest  may wish to add their perspective.

@David Milham @Jonathan Goldberg and other experts - wish to get your view on a topic ...  IG1233  recommends not to use Composite Product Specification and i believe rational for this could be lack of support / introduction of cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and also TMF 620 and TMF 622.  

Currently composability is  recommended at Offering layer with support of cardinality at this layer by TMF however this enforces indirectly  for not composing PS and rather creating Offering for every atomic PS to achieve flexibility of composition but this results into many technical ( non - sellable Offers).

Many modern COTS packages have been extending TMF SID and APIs to enable cardinality at Composite Product Spec as this gives more flexibility and agility with a choice of composition at both PO and PS layer.

Wanted to know your perspective about this and what's the reason for TMF not introducing cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and is there any plan / possibility of introducing it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Regards, Ashish

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

@David Milham @Jonathan Goldberg and other experts - wish to get your view on a topic ...  IG1233  recommends not to use Composite Product Specification and i believe rational for this could be lack of support / introduction of cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and also TMF 620 and TMF 622.  

Currently composability is  recommended at Offering layer with support of cardinality at this layer by TMF however this enforces indirectly  for not composing PS and rather creating Offering for every atomic PS to achieve flexibility of composition but this results into many technical ( non - sellable Offers).

Many modern COTS packages have been extending TMF SID and APIs to enable cardinality at Composite Product Spec as this gives more flexibility and agility with a choice of composition at both PO and PS layer.

Wanted to know your perspective about this and what's the reason for TMF not introducing cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and is there any plan / possibility of introducing it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Regards, Ashish

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

@Ashish Maheshwari asks about composability as described in IG1233. The guidance there are recommended best practices of the authors, and do not represent a restriction. At SigScale we have a much smaller catalog, and so different stakeholder concerns, and we chose to reuse Characteristic Specification definitions through composition.

I am not following your concern about "cardinality".  A composite Product Specification would have a 0..1 association with other (bundled) Product Specifications. The Characteristic Specifications do provide control of cardinality with the minCardinality and maxCardinality properties. Maybe the concern is reusing the same Characteristic names in Product Specifications?

@David Milham @Jonathan Goldberg and other experts - wish to get your view on a topic ...  IG1233  recommends not to use Composite Product Specification and i believe rational for this could be lack of support / introduction of cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and also TMF 620 and TMF 622.  

Currently composability is  recommended at Offering layer with support of cardinality at this layer by TMF however this enforces indirectly  for not composing PS and rather creating Offering for every atomic PS to achieve flexibility of composition but this results into many technical ( non - sellable Offers).

Many modern COTS packages have been extending TMF SID and APIs to enable cardinality at Composite Product Spec as this gives more flexibility and agility with a choice of composition at both PO and PS layer.

Wanted to know your perspective about this and what's the reason for TMF not introducing cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and is there any plan / possibility of introducing it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Regards, Ashish

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

@David Milham @Jonathan Goldberg and other experts - wish to get your view on a topic ...  IG1233  recommends not to use Composite Product Specification and i believe rational for this could be lack of support / introduction of cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and also TMF 620 and TMF 622.  

Currently composability is  recommended at Offering layer with support of cardinality at this layer by TMF however this enforces indirectly  for not composing PS and rather creating Offering for every atomic PS to achieve flexibility of composition but this results into many technical ( non - sellable Offers).

Many modern COTS packages have been extending TMF SID and APIs to enable cardinality at Composite Product Spec as this gives more flexibility and agility with a choice of composition at both PO and PS layer.

Wanted to know your perspective about this and what's the reason for TMF not introducing cardinality at Composite Product Spec layer and is there any plan / possibility of introducing it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Regards, Ashish

The referenced IG1233 has an Orange email worked exemplar which addresses some of the points you raise .

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your response , to extrapolate this further I am potentially looking at use cases where in you might want to define something as product spec but not necesaarily as a product offering as it is not sold independently in the market , the case in point I took here which is a SIP offering with offcourse number ranges .

Now in example I gave the intention is SIP PS will have all voice trunk related features like CLI , Overstamping , NUmber of channels etc whereas number ranges is primarily about the numbers associated with the SIP Trunk , business wants the flexibility to be able to order "n" number of ranges independently from the lifecycle of the Trunk ,which is even when a Trunk product is with a status of in progress I should be able to order number ranges as a MAC action , currently the product defintion is tightly coupled and hence it doesnt allow us to do the same , and thats the reaosn to be able to separate this out into two product specifications .

Now again quoting the GB922 Product guide 

"For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics"

This gives me the feeling GB922 allows such a construct(potentially by defining order actions on the PS level) and hence the reason of my query .

Thanks !!

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Optus

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2023 13:13
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Ankit

The construct that you refer to, a composite product specification, allows the definition and instantiation of complex product structures within an offering. But this does not imply that you can do MACD orders on a product inside the substructure. In my understanding, an inventory product can be the target of a MACD product order only if it was instantiated from a product offering. Certainly this is true if the order will have commercial impact, which is encapsulate in the product offering and associated prices.

Possibly, in your example, it might make sense to allow a MACD order on the number range, but what, exactly, would such an order do? Expand the range would surely have a pricing impact, no?

------------------------------
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: Mar 07, 2023 04:17
From: Dave Milham
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Have a look at this best Practice Guide based on BT and Orange experiences

IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2023 22:06
From: ANKIT MADAN
Subject: GB922 Product - Composite & Atomic ProductSpecifcations

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .

#General

------------------------------
ANKIT MADAN
Infosys
------------------------------

Hi Experts

I want your opinions on the below , I was reading through GB922 SID model for product and it has this concept of a Product being an instantiation of a Product Oferring Or Product Specfication.

As shown in the class diagram below .

Now ijust to quote a few things from the document .

1. "For example, a composite high-speed internet ProductSpecification may include email and personal web pages atomic ProductSpecifications which are not instantiated as separate offerings but still must be instantiated as Products. This is also necessary if a ProductSpecification not instantiated as a ProductOffering has configurable characteristics or prices associated with one or more characteristics."
2. "There are typically a number of ProductOfferings associated with a single ProductSpecification, for example to reflect offers to the market for different time periods. In cases where a ProductSpecification's value to the business is solely as a component part of a CompositeProductSpecification, it does not have a ProductOffering associated with it as it is not be sold on its own. Cases where these items are supplied to the Customer separately as 'spares', e.g., under warranty, are covered under Product below."

Now here is the question reading through the document it seems it is possible to have Product Specs which are not related to any offering but exists only as a atomic product specs insode a Composite Spec (which is related to an Offering), however this atomic product spec can still be instantiated as a Product .

If that is case I am hoping once a Atomic Product Spec is instantiated as product and is part of the customer's subscription inventory , it allows MACD operation on that product instance .

A very simple example below , We have a SIP Product offer which is what is sold to the end customer containing a SIP PS(Composite) and a Number Range (Atomic) , the SIP PS is associated to the SIP Product Offer , where as the Number Range PS is not associated to any offer , so when sold the below structure will create twp product instances one for SIP and the other one for the Number Range and will allow MACDs separately on the Number Range instance .

Your inputs on this will help clarify the context on the GB922 Product doc .

Thanks in advance .