The same struggle as described above has been haunting me as well. I've tried to apply TMFS008 and TMFS004 in the same spirit.
But I want to add one more complication.
What if the PODOM is one party, the PhysicalResourceSupplier (PRS) a second and the CFS+RFS provider a third?
PODOM would receive a resource reference from PRS and could attach it to the CFS-order, but that reference would mean nothing to the RFS provider.
Would PODOM have to inject a resource through the ROM of the RFS provider, setting the details received by the PRS, capturing the reference returned and then send the CFS-order with this reference which ís valid for the RFS provider?
This feels far from elegant...
Or am I missing something here?
PS. first post on TMForum communities
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 27, 2024 05:11
From: Dan d'Albuquerque
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
Hi Zoran
TMF641 Service Ordering API would need to be extended (by TMF or otherwise) to add in a resourceRelationship sub-resource. The API already has serviceRelationship as well as supportingService/supportResource so this would be a relatively straightforward extension.
Good luck!
------------------------------
Dan d'Albuquerque
Individual
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 27, 2024 04:51
From: Zoran Stojanovic
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
Thanks Dan, yes I know, there is the relationship in the model between the CFS and Resource, it is also in the model of TMFS004, see below. My question is how this relationship is communicated in ordering using TMF641 where there is only possible to have reference between RFS and Resource. How does Service Order manager become "aware" of this relationship if it gets TMF641 Service order for Connectivity only?
------------------------------
Zoran Stojanovic
Odido Netherlands B.V.
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 27, 2024 04:39
From: Dan d'Albuquerque
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
Hi Zoran
The latest version of TMFS008 Postpaid Mobile Line already contains the relationship between CFS -> Physical Resource Spec (see below). The question is whether the POOM places a TMF700 Shipping Order (for a Stock Item/Physical Resource) or a TMF652 Resource Order (for a StockItem/Physical Resource) as you mentioned above. Presumably there have been discussions on this within the ODA team, but I cannot see any progress on the community or from the minutes of the Open API architecture meetings.
@Jag Baddukonda perhaps you have an update based from discussions on the Supply Chain Management ODA component?
------------------------------
Dan d'Albuquerque
Individual
Original Message:
Sent: Aug 26, 2024 13:45
From: Zoran Stojanovic
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
In essence, the question is as follows: in TMFS004, there is a relationship "requires" between CFS Landline Connectivity and Physical Resource Box 1. How is that communicated to Service Order manager using TMF641 where there is no relationship between CFS and required resource? Shipment order goes to Shipping CFS, however, if Customer Order manager (COM) sends a resource order to Resource Order Manager using TMF652, how is the relationship "requires" between CFS and Resource is communicated from Customer OM to Service OM? The same question is for TMFS008, where physical SIM is Physical resource ordered through a Resource Order, while Mobile Line as a CFS that requires SIM is ordered via TMF641 as a Service Order. Should we extend TMF641 to register the relationship between CFS and Resource? Or, would there be an option as a workaround (and not too much deviation from the standard) to have a CFS and RFS next to PR also for a physical resource, so that Service OM receives it as a service order and manage the relationship with the service order for Connectivity?
------------------------------
Zoran Stojanovic
Odido Netherlands B.V.
Original Message:
Sent: Mar 07, 2024 11:34
From: Matthieu Hattab
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
hey,
If I understand the SID correctly:
- CFSSpec (know-how) requires at least one RFSSpec (technical solution)
- and of course the RFSSpec requires at least one RSpec
so you have an (indirect) relationship between CFSSpec and RSpec.
can you share your example of a CFSSpec that requires a RSpec without a RFSSpec "in the middle"?
Since you posted in the API community, do you want to see that CFSSpec -> RSpec relationship in the service catalogue API?
------------------------------
Kind regards,
Matthieu Hattab
Lyse Platform
Original Message:
Sent: Mar 06, 2024 04:59
From: Opher Yaron
Subject: Relationship between CFS and Resource
Hello experts,
In the relatively new TMFS003 "Order Capture - Fiber Contract", it is identified that the SID does not support defining prerequisite relationships between CFS Specification and Resource Specification. Consequently, a respective JIRA ticket was created: [ISA-905] Add a relationship between CFS Spec and Resource Spec - TM Forum JIRA
However, there is no word about how this relationship is supposed to be reflected in corresponding CFS and Resource instances.
The obvious candidate would be "supportingResource", but it is explicitly specified for Services that "Note: only Service of type RFS can be associated with Resources."
I believe that such relationship (between CFS and Resource instances) is necessary as well. Incidentally, we have recently encountered this need in our work on Product-Service-Resource modelling.
Do you agree? Does anyone have a different view?
Best regards,
------------------------------
Opher Yaron
Proximus SA
------------------------------